and an Affront put upon the Bishops they ought to make it out for their own Vindication and to prove themselves Innocent If they do that they do well and they ought to have Satisfaction â—…de them by those that have so highly injured them and the King cannot be better pleased I am sure than to find them so But if Men will look one way and act another they must expect to be dealt with accordingly Will any Man that has heard this Evidence and sees that these Gentlemen will not go the right way to work to prove their own Innocence believe them to be not Guilty 'T is plain they contrived it and signed it for can any one imagine that they set their Hands to a Paper that was not formed and contrived by themselves then let it go That this was done in another County and we cannot punish the Writing of it in this County yet still they are Guilty of causing it to be published in this County and for that we may punish them here We will be content with having that found that we have proved which certainly is an Offence Sir Rob. Sawyer We oppose that Sir. Mr. Sol. Gen. You oppose it I know you 'l oppose common Sense we don't speak to you we speak to the Court we are content with what is plain and do not desire to insist upon any strained Construction we say this is Natural Evidence for us If this thing be a Libel as we say it is then the causing it to be published is an Offence The Publication we â—…ay was here in Middlesex and of that there is Clear Evidence because it was found there and came from the King's Hand to whom it was directed and it could not come to the King's Hand out of their Custody without their Consent This we say is a clear Evidence of causing it to be published let the rest go as it will because we will take the easiest part of the Case and not go upon Strains Mr. Serj. Trinder The greatest Question is I think now come to the Publishing L. Ch. Iust. The Court is of Opinion that its coming to the King is a publishing Mr. Justice Powel Ay my Lord if it be proved to be done by them Mr. Serjeant Pemberton Before the Court deliver their Opinion we desire to be heard L. Ch. Iust. Brother you shall be heard in good time but let them make an end on the other side and when the King's Counsel have done we 'l hear you Mr. Serjeant Trinder My Lord upon the Question of Publishing it has been insisted upon and the Court seems to be very much of the same Opinion That the Writing of it is a Publishing That it is without Controversie if the Writing of it fell out to be in Middlesex where the Information is laid but that they would not have to be so by Argument because the Archbishop had kept in at Lambeth so long But suppose that it were so as they would have it that is only as to the Archbishop he being the Writer of it but yet notwithstanding that the other six might subscribe it in Middlesex taking it that there is such a Face in their Argument as they would have it Mr. Sol. Gen. We will lay no greater load on the other six than we do upon my Lord Archbishop and we say they are all Guilty of the Publication in Middlesex Mr. Serjeant Trinder Pray Sir spare me this Paper was in the Archbishops Custody and Power he making of it himself and regularly it could not have come out of his Custody in common Supposition but it must come with his Consent It was afterwards in the Power of the other six they had it to subscribe where the Subscription was non constâ—… they it may â—…e can prove it themselves but I will only deduce this Argument That if it after comes into Middlesex it must be taken by presumption to be subscribed by them there and published it must taken by Presumption so to be Lord Ch. Iust. No Brother we ought not to do any thing by presumption here Mr. Just. Powel No no by no means we must not go upon Presumptions but Proofs L. Ch. Iust. I will not presume it to be made in Middlesex Mr. Serj. Trinder But it is proved to be published in Middlesex Sir Robert Sawyer My Lord with submission there is no Evidence of the Publication Mr. Attor Gen. That the Court is to judge of Sir Rob. Sawyer Pray good my Lord what Instance of a Publication have they given Mr. Sol. Gen. The Court has heard â—…he Evidence we leave it there Sir Rob. Sawyer Was it their owning and acknowledging it was their Hands when the King asked them the Question at the Council-Table Surely the King's Counsel won't pretend that was a Publication when it was done at the King's Command it was certainly the King that published it then and not my Lords the Bishops Mr. Attor Gen. Well said Sir Rob. Sawyer Don't you remember that when Sir Blathwayt said the King gave it to be read and it was shewed to the Bishops L. Ch. Iust. I remember what Evidence Mr. Blathwayt gave of the Passages at the Council-Board very well and I know what Mr. Attorney did press about the Kings promising to take no advantage Mr. Attor Gen. My Lord Mr. Attorney is on the other side he did not press it L. Ch. Iust. Sir Robert Sawyer I mean I beg both your Pardons Gentlemen I think I have done Injury to you both Sir Rob. Sawyer My Lord we say there is no Evidence at all that ever this was sent to the King by the Archbishop or any of my Lords the Bishops And as for the Cases that they have put they might have put five hundred Cases and all nothing to the purpose Mr. Sol. Gen. So they might and done just as others had done before them Sir Rob. Sawyer And so are these for here is the Question We are in a Case where the Publication is that which makes it a Crime Now I would have them if they can put me any such Case and then apply it to this in William's Case the Question is quite otherwise and so in any Case of Treason it must be where-ever there is an Overt Act proved it is the Treasonable Intention and the ill Mind of the Traytor that is the Crime and the Treason the Overt Act is only to be the Evidence of it In that Case of Williams with submission my Lord the Publication was not at all necessary but the very secretest Act that could be done by him if it were an Act is an evidence of the Mind and so the sending of the Book to the King himself though no body else did see it was an Evidence of the Crime of Treason yet it could not be called a Pâ—…blication But in the other Case of Sir Baptist Hicks which was in the Star-Chamber about sending a Letter of Challenge it was plainly resolved that it was no Publication
THE PROCEEDINGS AND TRYAL IN THE CASE OF The Most Reverend Father in GOD WILLIAM Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY And the Right Reverend Fathers in God WILLIAM Lord Bishop of St. Asaph FRANCIS Lord Bishop of Ely IOHN Lord Bishop of Chichester THOMAS Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells THOMAS Lord Bishop of Peterborough And IONATHAN Lord Bishop of Bristol In the Court of Kings-Bench at Westminster in Trinity-Term in the Fourth Year of the Reign of King Iames the Second Annoque Dom. 1688. Licensed and Entred according to Act of Parliament LONDON Printed for Thomas Basset at the George in Fleet street and Thomas Fox at the Angel in Westminster-Hall 1689. TO HIS Most Illustrious HIGHNESS WILLIAM HENRY Prince of Orange May it please Your Highness HOW deeply the Design was laid and with what Violence carry'd on by those who lately Steer'd the Helm of this State for the Subversion of the Establish'd Religion and Government of these Three Kingdoms is already sufficiently well known to Your Highness Among the rest one of their Chiefest Contrivances was by a Malicious and Illegal Prosecution to have extinguish'd the Brigthest Luminaries of the English Church to the end that the benighted People might the more easily after that have been misled into the Pitfals of Superstition and Slavery But as Heaven began their Disappointment in eluding both at once there Subtilty and Malice by the speedy Deliverance of the Seven Renowned Sufferers from the Jaws of their Oppressors So the utter Dissolution of their Arbitrary Command and Domineering Power under the Conduct of the same Providence was fully Compleated Great SIR by Your Deliberative Prudence and Undaunted Courage To Your Illustrious Highness therefore the Oblation of these Sheets containing an exact Accompt of the Prosecution and Tryal of those Heroick Prelates is most justly due as being That wherein Your Higness may in part discern the Justice of the Cause You have so Generously undertaken and that it was not without Reason that the English Nation so loudly Implor'd Your timely Assistance A clear convincement that it was not Ambition nor the desire of spacious Rule but a Noble and Ardent Zeal for the most Sacred Worship of God which rows'd Your Courage to rescue a Distressed Land whose Religion Laws and Liberties were just ready to have been overwhelm'd with French Tyranny and Romish Idolatry Therefore that the Nation may long continue under the Protection of Your Glorious Administration is the Prayer of Great SIR Your Highnesses most Humble Most Faithful and most Obedient Servants Tho. Basset Tho. Fox December 13. 1688. NOT long after the Tryal of his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and the other Six Bishops and while the Passages thereof were fresh in my Memory I perused that Copy of this Proceeding and Tryal which Mr. Ince their Lordships Attorney had caused to be taken for their Use And I have also lately read over the same again as intended to be printed by Mr. Basset and Mr. Fox And I do think it to be a very Exact and True Copy of the said Proceeding and Tryal according to the best of my Judgment having been very careful in perusing thereof Ioh. Powel These Peers were present on the 15th Day of Iune 1688. when the Lords the Archbishop and Bishops were brought into Court from the Tower upon the Habeas Corpus VIZ. Lord Marquis of Hallifax Lord Marquis of Worcester Earl of Shrewsbury Earl of Kent Earl of Bedford Earl of Dorset Earl of Bullingbrook Earl of Manchester Earl of Burlington Earl of Carlisle Earl of Danby Earl of Radnor Earl of Nottingham Lord Viscount Fauconberge Lord Grey of Ruthyn Lord Paget Lord Chandoys Lord Vaughan Carbery These Peers were present on the Day of the Tryal being the 29th of Iune 1688. and the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul. VIZ. Lord Marquis of Hallifax Lord Marquis of Worcester Earl of Shrewsbury Earl of Kent Earl of Bedford Earl of Pembrook Earl of Dorset Earl of Bullingbrook Earl of Manchester Earl of Rivers Earl of Stamford Earl of Carnarvon Earl of Chesterfield Earl of Scarsdale Earl of Clarendon Earl of Danby Earl of Sussex Earl of Radnor Earl of Nottingham Earl of Abington Lord Viscount Fauconberge Lord Newport Lord Grey of Ruthyn Lord Paget Lord Chandoys Lord Vaughan Carbery Lord Lumley Lord Carteret Lord Ossulston 'T is possible more of the Peers might be present both Days whose Names by reason of the Croud could not be taken De Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno Regni Jacobi Secundi Regis Quarto In Banco Regis Die Veneris Decimo Quinto Die Junii 1688. Dominus Rex versus Archiep. Cantuar. al. Sir Robert Wright Lord Chief Justice Mr. Justice Holloway Mr. Justice Powell Mr. Justice Allybone Judges THIS being the first day of the Term His Majesties Attorney General as soon as the Court of Kings Bench was sat moved on the behalf of the King for a Habeas Corpus returnable immediate directed to the Lieutenant of the Tower to bring up his Grace the Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of St. Asaph Ely Chichester Bath and Wells Peterborough and Bristol which was granted And with great dispatch about eleven a Clock the very same day the Lieutenant returned his Writ and brought the said Lord Arch-Bishop and Bishops into Court where being set down in Chairs set for that purpose Mr. Attorney-General moved the Court. Viz. Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord I pray that the Writ and Retorn may be read by which my Lords the Bishops are brought hither Lo. Ch. Iust. Read the Retorn Clerk reads the Retorn which in English is as follows viz. I Sir Edward Hales Baronet Lieutenant of the Tower of London named in the Writ to this Schedule annext To Our Mâ—… Serene Lord the King do most humbly certifie That before the coming of the said Writ to wit the Eighth day of June in the Fourth Year of the Reign of our Lord James the Second King of England c. William Lord Arch-bishop of Canterbury William Lord Bishop of St. Asaph Francis Lord Bishop of Ely John Lord Bishop of Chichester Thomas Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells Thomas Lord Bishop of Peterborough and Jonathan Lord Bishop of Bristol mentioned in the aforesaid Writ were committed and delivered to and are retained in my Custody by Vertue of a certain Warrant under the Hands and Seals of George Lord Jeffries Baron of Wem Lord High Chancellor of England Robert Earl of Sunderland Lord President of the Privy Council of our Lord the King Henry Lord Arundel of Warder Keeper of the Pivy Seal of our said Lord the King William Marquess of Powis John Earl of Mulgrave Lord Great Chamberlain of England Theophilus Earl of Huntingtou Henry Earl of Peterborough William Earl of Craven Alexander Earl of Moray Charles Earl of Middleton John Earl of Melfort Roger Earl of Castlemain Richard Viscount Preston George Lord Dartmouth Sidney Lord Godolphin Henry Lord Dover Sir John Earnly Knight Chancellor of the
aforesaid William Archbishop of Canterbury of Lambeth in the County of Surrey William Bishop of St. Asaph of St. Asaph in the County of Flynt Francis Bishop of Ely of the Parish of St. Andrew Holbourn in the County of Middlesex Iohn Bishop of Chichester of Chichester in the County of Sussex Thomas Bishop of Bath and Wells of the City of Wells in the County of Somerset Thomas Bishop of Peterburgh of the Parish of St. Andrew Holbourn in the County of Middlesex and Ionathan Bishop of Bristol of the City of Bristol did consult and conspire among themselves to diminish the Regal Authority Royal Prerogative Power and Government of our said Lord the King in the premises and to infringe and clude the said Order and in prosecution and execution of the Conspiracy aforesaid They the said William Archbishop of Canterbury William Bishop of St. Asaph Francis Bishop of Ely Iohn Bishop of Chichester Thomas Bishop of Bath and Wells Thomas Bishop of Peterburgh and Ionathan Bishop of Bristol on the said eighteenth day of May in the fourth year of the Reign of our said Lord the King aforesaid with Force and Arms c. at Westminster aforesaid in the County of Middlesex aforesaid falsly unlawfully maliciously seditiously and scandalously did frame compose and write and caused to be framed composed and written a certain false feigned malicious pernicious and seditious Libel in writing concerning our said Lord the King and his Royal Declaration and Order aforesaid under pretence of a Petition and the same false feigned malicious pernicious and seditious Libel by them the aforesaid William Archbishop of Canterbury William Bishop of St. Asaph Franois Bishop of Ely Iohn Bishop of Chichester Thomas Bishop of Bath and Wells Thomas Bishop of Peterburgh and Ionathan Bishop of Bristol with their own hands respectively being subscribed on the day and year and in the place last mentioned in the presence of our said Lord the King with Force and Arms c. did publish and cause to be published in which said false feigned malicious pernicious and seditious Libel is contained The humble Petition c. prout before in the Petition to these words reasonable construction in manifest contempt of our said Lord the King and of the Laws of this Kingdom to the evil example of all others in the like case offending and against the Peace of our said Lord the King his Crown Dignity c. Whereupon the said Attorney-General of our said Lord the King on behalf of our said Lord the King prays the Advice of the Court here in the premises and due Process of Law to be made out against the aforesaid William Archbishop of Canterbury William Bishop of St. Asaph Francis Bishop of Ely Iohn Bishop of Chichester Thomas Bishop of Bath and Wells Thomas Bishop of Peterburgh and Ionathan Bishop of Bristol in this behalf to answer our said Lord the King in and concerning the premises c. T. Powys W. Williams To this Information the Defendents have pleaded Not Guilty and for their Trial have put themselves upon their Country and his Majesty's Attorney-General likewise which Country you are Your Charge is to enquire whether the Defendents or any of them are guilty of the matter contained in this Information that hath been read unto you or Not Guilty If you find them or any of them Guilty you are to say so and if you find them or any of them Not Guilty you are to say so and hear your Evidence Cryer make Proclamation Cryer O yes If any one will give Evidence on behalf of our Sovereign Lord the King against the Defendents of the matters whereof they are impeached let them come forth and they shall be heard Mr. Wright May it please your Lordship and you Gentlemen of the Jury this is an Information exhibited by his Majesty's Attorney-General against the most Reverend my Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and Six other Honourable and Noble Bishops in the Information mentioned And the Information sets forth That the King out of his Clemency and benign intention towards his Subjects of this Kingdom did put forth his Royal Declaration bearing date the fourth day of April in the third year of his Reign entituled His Majesty's Gracious Declaration to all his Loving Subjects for Liberty of Conscience and that afterwards the twenty-seventh of April in the fourth year of his Reign he published another Declaration both which have been read to you and for the further Manifestation and Notification of his Grace in the said Declaration bearing date the twenty-seventh of April last his Majesty did order That the said Declaration should be read on the twentieth and twenty-seventh of the same month in the Cities of London and Westminster and ten miles about and on the third and tenth of Iune throughout the whole Kingdom and that the Right Reverend the Bishops should send the said Declaration to be distributed throughout their respective Diocesses to be read accordingly But that the said Archbishop and Bishops the eighteenth of May in the said fourth year of his said Majesty's Reign having conspired and consulted among themselves to diminish the King's Power and Prerogative did falsly unlawfully maliciously and scandalously make compose and write a false scandalous malicious and seditious Libel under pretence of a Petition which Libel they did publish in the presence of the said King the Contents of which Libel you have likewise heard read To this they have pleaded Not Guilty You Gentlemen are Judges of the Fact if we prove this Fact you are to find them Guilty Mr. At. Gen. May it please your Lordship and you Gentlemen of the Jury your have heard this Information read by the Clerk and it has been likewise opened to you at the Barr but before we go to our Evidence perhaps it may not be amiss for us that are of Council for the King now in the beginning of this Cause to settle the Question right before you as well to tell you what my Lords the Bishops are not prosecuted for as what they are First I am to tell you and I believe you cannot your selves but observe that my Lords are not prosecuted as Bishops not much less are they Prosecuted for any point or matter of Religion but they are Prosecuted as Subjects of this Kingdom and only for a temporal Crime as those that have injured and affronted the King to his very Face for it is 〈◊〉 to be done in his own Presence In the next place they are not Prosecuted for any Noâ—…easance or not doing or omitting to do any thing but as they are Actors for ceâ—…ring of his Majesty and his Government and for giving their Opinion in Matters wholly relating to Law and Government and I cannot omit here to take notice that there is not any one thing which the Law is more iealous of or does more carefully provide for the prevention and punishment of than all accusations and arraâ—…ents of the Government no Man is allowed to
believe it or do you not Mr. Middleton It is like it that 's all I can say Mr. Sol. Gen. Cannot you tell whether you believe it or not believe it Mr. Middleton I do believe it is his hand Mr. Sol. Gen. Did you ever see him write for I would clear this matter beyond exception Mr. Middleton I have seen his Lordship write but I never stood by him so near as to see him make his Letters Mr. Sol. Gen. Is that his Hand-writing Mr. Middleton It is like it I believe it is his Mr. Sol. Gen. You did not guide his Hand I believe Do you know my Lord of Chichester's Hand-writing Mr. Middleton Sir I am acquainted with none of their Hands but with my Lord of Canterbury's and my Lord of Ely's Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you know my Lord of Peterburgh's Hand-writing Mr. Middleton I had my Lord of Peterburgh's Writing two years ago for some money but I cannot say this is his Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you believe it to be his Mr. Middleton I never took notice of it so much as to say I believe it to be like it I never saw it but once Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you know any other of the Names there What say you to the Bishop of Bristol's Name Mr. Middleton I saw once my Lord of Bristol's Hand-writing Mr. Sol. Gen. What say you to that Writing there Mr. Middleton It is like it Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you believe it to be his or no Mr. Middleton Truly that I cannot say for I never saw it but once Lord Ch. Iust. You never saw him Write did you Mr. Middleton No my Lord I never did Mr. Sol. Gen. Then we will call Sir Thomas Pinfold and Mr. Clavel Sir Thomas Pinfold is there Swear him Sir Thomas Pinfold Sworn Mr. Sol. Gen. Sir Thomas Pinfold do you know my Lord Bishop of Peterburgh's Hand-writing Sir Thomas Pinfold Truly not very well I never saw but one Letter from him in my Life shew me his Hand and I will tell you Which was done Mr. Sol. Gen. Well Sir what say you to it Sir Tho. Pinfold Then upon my Oath I say I cannot well tell upon my own Knowledge that it is his Hand Mr. Sol. Gen. I ask you do you believe it to be his Hand Sir Tho. Pinfold Sir upon the Oath that I have taken I will answer you that upon this account that I have heard there was a Paper delivered by my Lords the Bishops to the King and this Paper that you offer me I suppose to be the same upon that Score I do believe it but upon any other Score I cannot tell what to say Mr. Sol. Gen I ask you upon your Oath Sir do you believe it is his Hand-writing or no Sir Tho. Pinfold Sir I have answered you already that upon my own Knowledge I cannot say it is his Hand-writing but because I have heard of such a Paper I do believe it may be his Lord Ch. Iust. Did you ever see my Lord Bishop write Sir Tho. Pinfold I have been in his Chamber several times when he has been Writing but I had more Manners than to look upon what he Writ Lord Ch. Iust. Did you never see him write his Name Sir Tho. Pinfold I do not know that I ever saw him write his Name but I have seen him Writing I say and so my Lord Bishop may have seen me Writing but I believe he does not know my Hand Mr. Sol. Gen. You have seen him write you say Sir Tho. Pinfold I tell you Mr. Sollicitor I have been in his Chamber when he has been Writing but I had more Manners than to look over him Mr. Iust. Powel Then you did never see any of that Writing Sir Tho. Pinfold I cannot say I did my Lord. Mr. Att. Gen. Pray did you never see any of his Writing but that Letter you speak of Sir Tho. Pinfold No not that I remember Mr. Iust. Powel Mr. Sollicitor you must call other Witnesses for this does not prove any thing Mr. At. Gen. We will go on Swear Mr. Clavel Mr. Clavel Sworn Mr Sol. Gen. Do you know my Lord Bishop of Peterburgh's Hand-writing or no Mr. Clavel I have seen it many times Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you know it when you see it Mr. Clavel I believe I do Sir. Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray look upon that Paper and upon your Oath tell us do you believe that Name to be his Writing or no Mr. Clavel I do believe it is my Lord. Mr. At. Gen. Pray look upon the rest of the Hands there do you know any of the other Names Mr. Clavel No I do not Mr. Att. Gen. Have you ever seen any of their Writing Mr. Clavell It is probable I may have seen some but do not now remember it Mr. Sol. Gen. I think you are a Bookseller Mr. Clavell Mr. Clavell Yes I am so Sir. Mr. Sol. Gen. I suppose you have had some Dealings with them in the way of your Trade Did you never see any of their Writing Mr. Clavell I have seen the Names of some of them but it is so long since that I cannot Remember L. C. I. Did you ever see my Lord of Peterborough Write Mr. Clavell I cannot tell whether ever I saw him Write his Name or no but I have had several Letters from my Lord of Peterborough Mr. Sol. Gen. Is that his Hand-writing Mr. Clavell I cannot say it is I believe it is Mr. Sol. Gen. You have had Letters from him you say Mr. Clavell Yes and it seems to be like his Hand Mr. Pollixfen But you never saw him Write his Hand you say Mr. Clavell I cannot say I ever did Mr. Sol. Gen. These Letters that you have received from my Lord of Peterborough did he own them Do you think they were Counterfeit or of his own Hand-writing Mr. Clavell I suppose he has owned them Sir. Mr. I. Powell But you must Answer directly Sir Did he own them Mr. Sol. Gen. What did those Letters concern were they about Books or what Mr. Clavell They were sometimes about one business sometimes about another Mr. Sol. Gen. Was the subject-matter of any of these Letters about Mony and was it paid you Did you receive or did you give any account of it Mr. Clavell They were about several Businesses L. C. I. Look you Mr. Clavell you must give us as particular account as you can Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray Sir upon those Letters were the things done that those Letters required Mr. Clavell Yes they were Mr. Sol. Gen. Did you do your part Mr. Clavell Yes I did Mr. Sol. Gen. Now I would ask you Do you believe that Name of my Lord Bishop of Peterborough to be the Hand-writing of my Lord Bishop Mr. Clavell I believe it is Mr. I. Powell Do you know that those Letters that you say you received from my Lord were of my Lords own Hand-writing Do you Swear that Mr. Clavell My Lord I cannot Swear that Mr. Finch Do you know whether the Letters
may be Read. Mr. Att. Gen. We have given sufficient Evidence sure to have it Read therefore we desire it may be Read. Mr. Serj. Levinz My Lord before this Paper be Read we hope you will let us be heard to it we think that what they desire to have this Paper Read ought not to be for what is all the proof that they have given of this Paper they have a proof by Comparison of Hands which in a Criminal Case ought not to be received and besides my Lord what is that Comparison of Hands that they have offered Some persons come here and say They cannot tell whether it be their Hands they believe it may or it may not for ought they know How shall we Convict any Man upon such a Testimony as this can we have our Remedy against him for Perjury for saying He believes it to be our Hand therefore here is not any Evidence to Charge us For first It is only a Comparison of Hands And secondly That Comparison is proved in such an uncertain manner Some of them tell you They do not know what to believe another tells you I believe 't is rather such a Lord's Hand then the others are such a Lord's Hands I believe 't is rather his Hand than that above it or that below it what sort of proof is all this Therefore we pray it may not be Read till they prove it better Mr. Serj. Pamberton Pray my Lord spare me a word or two in this matter for Evidence sake there is a great deal of reason we should take Exceptions to the Evidence that has been given for truly I think I never heard such a sort of Evidence given before It is a Case of as great Concernment as ever was in Westminster â—…all and for them to come to prove Hands only by those that saw Letters but never saw the persons Write this I hope will not amount to so much as a Comparison of Hands Your Lordship knows that in every petty Cause where it depends upon the Comparison of Hands they use to bring some of the Parties Hand writing which may be Sworn to to be the Parties own Hand and then it is to be compared in Court with what is endeavoured to be proved and upon comparing them together in Court the Jury may look upon it and see if it be right and never was there any such a thing as this admitted in any poor petty Cause that is but of the value of Forty Shillings And therefore as to this Evidence First We say Comparison of Hands ought not to be given at all in the Cases of Criminals And I believe it was never heard of that it should In the next place if it be admitted to be Evidence yet it is not such an Evidence as that by Comparison of Hands the Jury can take notice of it for in such manner of proofs by Comparison of Hands the usage is That the Witness is first asked concerning the Writing he produces Did you see this Writ by the Defendant whose Hand they would prove If he answers yes I did then should the Jury upon Comparison of what the Witness Swears to with the Paper that is to be proved judge whether those Hands be so like as to induce them to believe that the sames person Writ both and not that the Witness should say I had a Letter from such a person and this is like the Hand of that Letter therefore I believe it to be his Hand My Lord I hope this shall never be admitted for Evidence in this Court. L. C. I. I do take it that the Witness himself is Judge of the Comparison for if he does know the Parties Hand and a Paper be offered him to prove the Parties Hand he is to compare it in his own mind Mr. Serj. Pemberton It never was admitted to be so that I know of my Lord or ever Read of Mr. Sol. Gen. You may remember several Cases about that particularly Sidney's Case Mr. Pollixfen Pray my Lord hear me a little as to that it is a Point of very great moment whether in the Case of a Misdemeanour either in an Indictment or Information it be good Evidence to offer Comparison of Hands and that this Court did adjudge quite contrary upon an Indictment of Forgery against my Lady Carr appears in Syderfin's Reports they went to prove her Letters Written by her to Cox the Court rejected it and gave their judgement here That it was no Evidence and that for this Reason Because of the evil consequences of it For said they It is an easie matter for any Man's Hand to be Counterfeited that they sure will agree for frequent daily experience shews how easily that may be done is it not easie then to cut any Man down in the World by proving it is like his Hand and proving that likenss by comparing it with something that he hath formerly seen this strikes mighty deep the honestest Man in the World and the most Innocent may be destroyed and yet no fault to be found in the Jury or in the Judges if the Law were so it would be an unreasonable Law. Next my Lord for the Case of Sidney that was a Case of Treason Now in the Case of Treason there is always other Evidence brought and this Evidence comes in but as a Collateral Evidence to strengthen the other but in this Case it is the single Evidence for ought that appears for there is nothing more for ought I can see in the Case but whether this were their Hands and proved only by what another believes Now shall any be condemned by anothers belief without proof surely my Lord that was never Evidence yet to Convict any one so that their proof failes in both Points For first It ought to be considered whether Comparison of Hands be Evidence in a Case of Misdemeanour And next if it be Evidence whether you will take it that the belief of a Man that brings nothing to compare with it or never saw the Party Write but has received Letters and says This is like it and therefore he believes it to be his Hand be good Evidence as a Comparison of Hands Mr. Serj. Pemberton My Lord they are pleased to mention Mr. Sol. Gen. Mr. Serj. you have been heard already and you are not to reply upon us or if you would we must be heard first Mr. Serj. Pemberton I would only speak to that Case of Sidney my Lord that Case differs from this toto Caelo the Writing was found in his possession in his Study there was the proof that nailed him Mr. Sol. Gen. You shall see how we 'll apply it by and by Mr. Att. Gen. Pray my Lord favour me a word in this matter that there is stronger and weaker Evidence no Man doubts but that which these Gentlemen say that in this Case there is no Evidence must needs be a mistake if they mean that it is not so strong an Evidence as is possible to be given
was proper for you to stand upon the Place where it was Written as yet Mr. Serj. Levinz When we are upon an Information of a Fact in Middlesex will you hear them give Evidence of a Fact in Yorkshire Mr. Sol. Gen. We are not to be driven by these Gentlemen we are to be directed by the Court. L. C. I. I think truly it is yet too early to make this Objection Mr. Serj. Pemberton Surely my Lord this is our time to oppose the Reading of it as not proved Mr. I. Powell Mr. Sollicitor I think you have not sufficiently proved this Paper to be Subscribed by my Lords the Bishops Mr. Sol. Gen. Not to Read it Sir Mr. I. Powell No not to Read it it is too slender a Proof for such a Case I grant you in Civil Actions a slender proof is sufficient to make out a Man's Hand by a Letter to a Tradesman or a Correspondent or the like but in Criminal Causes such as this if such a proof be allowed where is the safety of your Life or any Man's Life here Mr. Sol. Gen. We tell you a Case where it was allowed and that is Mr. Sidney's Case a Case of Treason and Printed by Authority We tell you nothing but what was done to'ther day L. C. I. I tell you what I say to it I think truly there is proof enough to have it Read and I am not ashamed nor afraid to say it for I know I speak with the Law say what you will of Criminal Cases and the danger of Peoples Lives there were more danger to the Government if such proof were not allowed to be good Mr. I. Powel I think there is no danger to the Government at all in requiring good proof against Offenders L. C. I. Here 's my Lord Archbishop and the Bishop of St. Asaph and my Lord of Ely their Hands are proved it is proved to be my Lord Archbishop's Writing by Mr. Brookes and he proves my Lord of Ely's Hand by Comparison and so my Lord of St. Asaph's Now Brother Pemberton there 's an Answer to your Objection it being proved that it is all my Lord Archbishop's Hand then they come and say We 'll prove the Hands of the others by comparison and for that they bring you Witnesses that say They have received Letters from them and seen their Hand-writing several times and comparing what they have seen with this very Paper says the Witness I do believe it to be his Hand Can there be a greater Evidence or a fuller Mr. Serj. Pemberton Admit it be a full Evidence against my Lord Arch-Bishop What 's that to the rest There 's no Evidence against them Mr. I. Allybone Brother Pemberton as to the Objection you make of Comparing of Hands it is an Objection indeed I do agree but then consider the inconvenience which you and Mr. Pollixfen do so much insist upon If a Man should be accused by Comparison of Hands Where is he He is in a lamentable Case for his Hand may be so Counterseited that he himself may not be able to distinguish it But then you do not consider where you are on the other side that may be an Objection in matters of Fact that will have very little weight if compared and set altogether For on the other side where shall the Government be if I will make Libels and traduce the Government with Prudence and Discretion and all the secrecy imaginable I 'll Write my Libel by my self prove it as you can that 's a fatal blot to the Government and therefore the Case is not the same nor is your Doctrine to pass for current here because every Case depends upon its own Fact. If I take upon me to Swear I know your Hand the inducements are to my self how I came to know it so as to Swear it Knowledge depends on Circumstances I swear that I know you but yet I may be under a mistake for I can have my knowledge of you no other way but from the visibility of you and another Man may be so like you that there is a possibility of my being mistaken but certainly that is Evidence and good Evidence Now here are several Gentlemen that swear as to my Lord Archbishop's Hand-writing I do agree as to some of the others that the Evidence is not so strong for what that Man said that he did believe it was rather such a Lord's Hand than that which went before or that which came after it is of no weight at all and so some of the others but it is positively proved against my Lord Archbishop and one or two more so that that 's enough to induce the reading of this writing Mr. Iust. Holloway Good my Lord let me give my opinion L. C. Iust. Ay withall my heart Brother Mr. Iust. Holloway My Lord I think as this Case is there ought to be a more strong proof for certainly the proof ought to be stronger and more certain in Criminal matters than in Civil matters in Civil matters we do go upon slight proof such as the comparison of Hands for proving a Deed or a Witnesses Name and a very small proof will induce us to read it but in Criminal matters we ought to be more strict and require positive and substantial proof that is fitting for us to have in such a Case and without better proof I think it ought not to be read L. C. Iust. You must go on to some other proof Mr. Sollicitour for the Court is divided in their Opinions about this proof Mr. Soll. Gen. Then my Lord we will come to the Confessions of my Lords the Bishops and I hope that will be believed by all Man-kind Mr. Att. Gen. Truly my Lord we did forbear that Evidence and would not have proceeded this way if we had had fair play on the other side Sir Ro. Sawyer Mr. Attorney give us leave to defend our Clients all the ways we can I think we doe nothing but what is fair the Court you see is divided therefore we did not without reason insist upon it L. C. Iust. You must go on as you can for they will put you upon it Mr. Att. Gen. Swear Mr. Blathwayt Mr. Blathwayt Sworn Mr. Soll. Gen. Pray hand the writing to him The writing shown to him Mr. Soll. Gen. Have you seen that writing formerly Sir Mr. Blathwayt Yes Sir. Mr. Soll. Gen. What did you hear my Lord Arch-Bishop say about that Paper Mr. Att. Gen. And the rest of my Lords the Bishops Mr. Soll. Gen. First we 'll ask as to my Lord Arch-Bishop did he own it to be his Hand-writing Mr. Blathwayt My Lord I believe this to be the Paper that my Lord Arch-bishop did own to be subscribed by him Mr. Soll. Gen. When was it owned by him Mr. Blathwayt On the Council day the Eighth of this Month. Mr. Soll. Gen. Where was it owned because we would obviate that Objection of the County Mr. Blathwayt It was at the Council Table at
Whitehall Mr. Soll. Gen. What say you to the Bishop of St. Asaph Did he own it Mr. Blathwayt Yes All my Lords the Bishops did own it Mr. Soll. Gen. Name them particularly what say you the Bishop of Ely Mr. Blathwayt In the same manner my Lord. Mr. Soll. Gen. The Bishop of Chichester Mr. Blathwayt In the same manner Mr. Soll. Gen. The Bishop of Bath and Wells Mr. Blathwayt Yes my Lord. Mr. Soll. Gen. The Bishop of Peterborough Mr. Blathwayt Yes my Lord. Mr. Soll. Gen. And the Bishop of Bristol Mr. Blathwayt Yes my Lord. Mr. Soll. Gen. So We have proved they all owned it Mr. Iust. Holloway Could not this have been done at first and saved all this trouble Sir Rob. Sawyer Have you done with Mr. Blathwayt Mr. Attorney that we may ask him some questions Mr. Att. Gen. Ask him what you will. Mr. Ser. Pemb. Pray Mr. Blathwayt upon what occasion did they own it you are Sworn to tell the whole truth pray tell all your Knowledge and the whole Confession that they made Mr. Blathwayt My Lord I am called here by a Subpoena to answer on behalf of the King my Lord I am ready to doe my duty and I beg of your Lordship that you would please to tell me what is my duty for whatsoever I shall answer I shall speak the truth in Mr. Ser. Pemb. There is nothing desired but that you would speak the truth Mr. Blathwayt My Lord I am easily guided by your Lordship what I ought to answer to L. C. Iust. What is it you ask him Brother Pemberton Mr. Ser. Pemb. We desire Mr. Blathwayt to tell the whole discourse that passed at the Council when he says my Lords the Bishops owned this Paper Mr. Soll. Gen. That 's a very pretty thing indeed L. C. Iust. Look you Mr. Blathwayt you must answer them what they ask you unless it be an ensnaring Question and that the Court will take care of Mr. Blathwayt If your Lordship please to ask me any Question I shall readily answer it L. C. Iust. You must answer them Mr. Ser. Pemb. We ask you upon what occasion they came to own their Hands What discourse was made to them and what they answered Mr. Blathwayt My Lord I beg your Lordship's directions L. C. Iust. Come tell it Sir. Mr. Blathwayt My Lord the occasion was this This Paper was read in Council and I had the honour to read it before the King and it having been read before his Grace the Arch-Bishop and my Lords the Bishops they were asked whethey did own that Paper and my Lord they did own it Sir Rob. Sawyer Mr. Blathwayt was that the first time that my Lords the Bishops came in Mr. Blathwayt Sir I was not asked that Question L. C. Iust. What would you have Sir Robert Sawyer Sir Robert Sawyer We would have an account what passed at the Council L. C. Iust. Would you have all the Discourse betwixt the Council and my Lords the Bishops Mr. Ser. Pemb. All that relates to their Accusation my Lord their whole Confession and what was said to them Mr. Att. Gen. Do you think Mr. Serjcant that when we call a Witness you are at liberty to examine him to every impertinent thing Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord we desire that they may only ask reasonable and proper Questions Mr. Ser. Pemb. Mr. Sollicitour he is sworn to answer and tell the whole truth and that 's all we ask of him Sir Rob. Sawyer Sir I will ask you a plain Question upon your Oath did not my Lord Arch-Bishop and the rest of my Lords the Bishops at first resuse to own it or to answer whether it were their Hands or not Mr. Soll. Gen. That is not a fair Question Sir Robert Sawyer 't is a leading Question Mr. Ser. Pemb. Then I ask you in short what did they refuse I am sure that is a fair Question for God forbid that any should hinder the King's Evidence from telling truth Sir Rob. Sawyer And God forbid that half Evidence should condemn any man. L. C. Iust. God forbid the Truth should be concealed any way Mr. Ser. Pemb. Pray Sir when they were first asked whether that was their Hands or not what answer did they give Mr. Blathwayt Sir I have begged the favour of my Lords the Judges to tell me what I am to answer and what Questions are proper for me to answer to L. Ch. Iust. You must answer any Questions that are not ensnaring Questions Sir Robert Sawyer Mr. Blathwayt you are upon your Oath to testifie the Truth Mr. Blathwayt Sir I am not acquainted with the Methods of Law I desire my Lords the Judges would instruct me Mr. Iust. Ailibone Answer to the Question that they ask you Ld. Ch. Iust. We observe what they ask you we 'll take care that they ask you nothing but what they should Mr. Blathwayt I desire the Question may be repeated Mr. S. Pemberton When they were first asked if it were their Hands what answer did they give the King Mr. Blathwayt His Grace the Archbishop and my Lords the Bishops at first did not immediately answer whether the Paper were theirs or no. Mr. S. Peinberton What did they say Mr. Blathwayt They said they did humbly hope if they were put to answer no advantage should be taken against them Mr. S. Pemberton What did they say farther at that time concerning His Majesties pleasure Mr. Soll. Gen. That 's a leading Question Mr. S. Pemberton you cannot leave your way of leading Witnesses Mr. S. Pemberton It is a very strange thing if we ask a question that 's general that 's excepted to if we ask any question in particular then they find fault with us that it is a leading Question so that we can never ask a question that will please them Pray Mr. Blathwayt what did they say concerning the King's pleasure whether they would answer if the King commanded them Mr. S. Trinder How can it be material what they said L. Cn. Iust. It is material that it should be asked and that it should be answered Mr. S. Levinz You are to tell the whole Truth Sir Pray tell us what did my Lords the Bishops say about submitting to the King's pleasure Mr. Soll. Gen. What is that to the purpose Mr. Pollixfen Mr. Sollicitour his Oath is to tell the truth and the whole truth and therefore he must answer my question Mr. S. Pemberton You are mighty loth Mr. Sollicitour to let us hear the truth I would not willingly lead him in any thing and I cannot see that this is any leading question unless his Oath be against Law which says he is to tell the whole truth Mr. At. Gen. My Lord I do beg your Lordship's favour of a word in this thing It is certain if they ask any thing that shall take off the Evidence that was first given that it is not true I cannot oppose it but if they ask questions onely to conflame and to possess people
own Act and Dead It is true if my Lords had published a Paper that was contrived by some of their Council it had been some Excuse and they must have only suffered for that Publication in the place where it was done but they are here for Writing this they have owned in this County and therefore iâ—…â—…es upon them to prove it done elsewhere There is another Objection my Lord made That here is no Evidence of a Publicationâ—… my Lord I take it to be a Publication in it self Is it possible for a man to write a Libell to set his Name and part with it and it coming to the hands of the King that this is not a Publication It is not their saying we did not publish it that will excuse them for can there be a greater Publication in it self than this when men have set their Hands to it and owned their Names what makes the Fact in this Case If a Deed he denied to be factum of such a one what is the proof of it but setting the Hand and Seal and the Delivery There is owning the Paper and setting their Hands is a Publication in it self and therefore they cannot make any such Objection My Lord if there were occasion we have Authorities enough to this purpose and we will give them scope enough if they will argue this matter and if they have any Evidence we desire to hear what they can say to it Mr. Att. Gen. As for this matter of Fact my Lord if I take it right they do not Controvert the Publishing but say they pray make it out where it was written or composed I confess this would be a business worth the while for all persons that act in this manner and are concerned in making of Libels to understand for their advantage no man doubts in the matter of Treason but it is local then put the Case a man is found in Middlesex with a treasonable Paper in his Pocket I do not make a Comparison as if this was such a Paper I hope I am not so understood but I only put it as a Case and that the Law is so is beyond all Controversie then the man is indicted here in Midds for framing and composing such a Treasonable Libell and he comes to be tryed and says he Pray prove where I made and composed it for though you found it in my Pocket in the County of Midds yet I might doe it in the County of York upon my word this had been a very good Defence for Mr. Sidney who was indicted convicted and attainted for making a Treasonable Paper which was found in his Study might not he have put the same Objection might not Mr. Sidney have said it was great pity he did not understand it pray prove where I did it for I did it elsewhere than in this County Mr. Sol. Gen. He did say it I remember Mr. Att. Gen. Truly my Lord I would not hear any Answer given to this for it would make the King in a very woful Case Here is a Paper that is found in the County of Midds and this is there owned by you to be written and subscribed by you pray do you prove it that it was written elsewhere Mr. Serj. Pemb. My Lord we will doe it we will be governed by Mr. Attorney for once Mr. Serj. Levinz We will prove that my Lord Archbishop was not in Middlesex in seven Months before and truly I think Mr. Attorney's Case of a Paper found about a man or in his Custody will not come up to our Case for was this Paper found about us surely that is not pretended Mr. Serj. Pemb. Your Lordship sees by the very frame of the Petition that this Petition which they call a Libell was made after the King's Order concerning reading this Declaration Now we shall prove that my Lord Archbishop whose hand-writing they prove this to be was not out from Lambeth-House in two Months before nor till he was before the Council Sr. Rob. Sawyer Which was long after that time when it was made Mr. Serj. Pemb. So that this cannot be written in the County of Middlesex Call Francis Nicholls Mr. Nicholls was sworn Sir R. Sawyer Do you remember the 18th of May last Mr. Nicholls Yes Sir. Sir. R. Sawyer Pray how was it with my Lord Archbishop of Canterbury at that time and before that did he go abroad Mr. Nicholls My Lord I am very sure that my Lord his Grace of Cant. whom I have served in his Bed Chamber this seven years never stirred out of the Gate of Lambeth House since Michaelmas last Sir R. Sawyer Till when Mr. Nicholls Mr. Nicholls Not till the time he was summoned before the Councill Mr. Serj. Pemb. Now I hope we have given them a full proof that it could not be in Middles Call Thomas Smith Mr. Smith was not examined Mr. Finch Truly my Lord I think that what we have proved or what Proof we further offer of my Lord of Canterburies not being in Middlesex for so long a time is ex abundanti and we need it not for with humble submission in point of Law it is incumbent upon them that are to prove the Charge in the Information to prove where it was done because the Locality of it is part of the thing they ought to prove it in it's nature it is local there is a Place assigned in the Informâ—…ion and unless they prove it was done in the Place that they have laid they have not proved the Charge in the Information Now my Lord they have not made any Proof of that and for proof of Publication I think they have offered none to your Lordship they never did call it so yet and truly I never did hear or know that the owning of their Hands at the Council-Table was a Publication of a Libel it is owning the Writing but it is not an owning where the Writing was made but where it was written and where it was made is of necessity to be proved before the Charge upon a Record in a Court of Justice can be said to be made out it is a Local Charge and in Justice the locality must be proved or the Information fails my Lord they have offered no Proof to it and they have not yet gone to the second part of the Information for as to the Publication of it there is not a tittle of Proof offered but only the owning of their Hands upon their Examination at the Council and no Man did ever yet think that the answering a Question and owning a Paper at the Council-Table upon a Question put by the King himself was a Publication of a Libel Mr. Serjeant Baldock Pray my Lord hear me a Word to that Though the thing be never so local yet there must be some place where a thing that was done was done Then if nothing else appears but what was done in Westminster in the County of Middlesex unless they shew the contrary that must be the very
of the Letter and that was not the ground of the Judgment given against him there that it was the Publication of a Libel but the very Fact was a particular offence for said the Court there if you will send a Letter to a private Man and that is a Letter that will provoke him to break the Peace that is an Offence punishable in the Star-Chamber but that is not the Reason which was alledged because no Action will lie for want of Proof but quite the contrary because they may produce the Porter or Party that brought it and prove it that it came from this man's hands and I do not question but that in the King's Bench at this day if a man will write a Letter privately to provoke another man to fight there will lie an Information but not for a Libel for there it will be necessary for to make it an Offence that there be a Publication for that is the very form of the Crime and upon that ground were all those Judgments against Libels in the Star-Chamber My Lord I agree to write a Letter to the King of another Person or to make a Petition to the King concerning another Person as of my Lord Chancellor or the Judges or the like to complain to the King of them scandalously with provoking and reviling Language that is a Publication and so if I write a Letter to one man of another if there be Scandal in a Letter that is a Pubâ—…cation of a Libel and that is the difference that has been always taken where it is essential to make it a Libel that there be a Publication such a Publication must be proved and the delivery of a Letter to a man that concerns himself is no Publication but in this case they have not so much as proved that it was delivered to the King. Mr. Serj. Pemberton My Lord with your Lordship's leave I take it that they have given no manner of Evidence of a Publication to say the writing and subscribing of their Names to a Paper is a Publication of that Paper is such a Doctrine truly as I never heard before supposing this Paper had lain in my Study subscribed by me but never went further would this have been a Publication They never said any such thing As to Algernoon Sidney's Case there was no colour for it that it should be a Publication but it was an Overt Act of Treason to compose such a Book They have proved by our Confession here that we have subscribed this Paper they would take it now that therefore it must be presumed we sent this to the King and so surmise us into an Information for making and publishing a Libel which we sent to the King but they do not prove it at all My Lord there are a thousand ways that it might come into Middlesex and perhaps come to the King's Hands too without our knowledge of Delivery and sure you will not presume these Noble Persons without Evidence to be guilty of such an Offence as this is suggested to be so that My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury 't is impossible for you to find this a Publication in Middlesex and for the other thing the writing this Paper they that would make it an Offence must prove where it was done Mr. Ser. Levinz My Lord The Answer that I shall give to what has been said on the other side is very short the Cases that have been cited are all Law but not one tittle to this purpose In Sir Baptist Hicks's Case and Williams's Case it was proved they all sent them to the Places whither they were directed but is there a tittle of Proof that these Bishops sent it here In all those Cases they must send it either by a Porter or a Carrier and they send it as their own Act and when it comes there by their sending that is sufficient Proof of their Act in the place whither it is sent And for Sidney's Case there was Treason in the very Libel and Book that he made and he was not indicted for Publishing but for Treason in the place where it was found because it was found in his possession But was this ever in my Lord Archbishops possession in Middlesex or the rest of the Bishops and were they publishing of it if it had then it had been their Act clearly But that is the thing wherein they are defective that they do not prove that my Lords the Bishops sent or brought it here but upon the Question asked them by the King they acknowledged it to be their Hands So that my Lord there is no proof of any Fact done here but an Acknowledgment of a Fact done no Body knows where upon the King's Question here in Middlesex Is that any Proof of this Information Mr. Finch Pray my Lord spare me a Word on the same side let us see what the Evidence is The Evidence is this That the King brought the Paper to the Council-Table and the Bishops owned their Hands to it This is the Effect of the Evidence and all that is to prove the Forming and Making a Libel in Middlesex and the Publication of that Libel And what is therefore inferred from thence why having proved that the King brought the Paper to the Council-Table and the Bishops owned their Hands Therefore first the Bishops made this Libel in Middlesex Secondly they brought it to the Council-Table and published it at the Council-Table or else there is no proof at all For here is nothing of Evidence given of any Fact but because they acknowledged it therefore they made it therefore they gave it to the King in Middlesex This were good Evidence if they had had the Help of a Supposition to make it good but they want that nor must any such thing be admitted but I think they are such gross false Consequences that I doubt not you 'l be of Opinion Here 's no proof of a Publication in Middlesex and then there is no proof at all against my Lords the Bishops Mr. Pollixfen I must confess I hear them say two Acts prove a Publication in this Case the one is the Writing of the Libel and the Subscribing If so then I think upon the Evidence that has been given the Court must needs be satisfied that the Writing of it was in Surrey The next is their owning their Hands for there is no Act done that appears or any Evidence against them of any Act done from the time of the Writing to the time that they were asked is this your Hand Surely no Man would ever think this to be a Publication where one is asked by Authority whether such a Paper be his Hand and he acknowledges 〈◊〉 in Answer to that Question to turn this to be a Crime I think it can never be done nor never was done before Then there is nothing in the Case that they can hold to for Evidence and Proof against my Lords the Bishops but the Writing and that is apparent to
the question is from whom the King had it I am sure they must shew that some body else did it and unless they doe show that I hope there is no manner of question but it came from them and they did it though no man Living knew any thing of this matter but whom they thought fit to communicate it to yet still they putting the King upon the necessity of shewing this Power in order to his obtaining satisfaction for it or else he must remain under the indignity without reparation it ought to be put upon them to clear the Fact for if he does not produce it then must the King put up the highest injury and affront that perhaps a Man can give the King to his face by delivering a Libel into his own hands and if he does produce it then say they that is not our publication we prove it to be your writing and signing and we prove it to come from the hand of the King against whom it was composed for we say it is a Libel against his Majesty his Government and Prerogative if then all those cases that have been cited be Law then sure there never was a stronger case in the World than this and I hope the Law goes a little farther in the case of the King than it does in the case of a private Man no Man must think by policy to give private wounds to the Government and disparage the Administration of it and then when he is called in question about it says he pray prove that I published it or else you shall not punish me for it we prove you framed it and writ it and signed it and we prove it came to the King's hand of whom it was composed must we produce two Witnesses of the delivery of it to the King surely there will be no need of any thing of that Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord we have reduced it now to a very narrow question for as Mr. Attorney has said my Lord there is no doubt but that my Lords the Bishops are the Authours of this Paper there is no doubt but they signed it and there is no doubt but that their signing of it though it were at Lambeth as they say is a publishing of it but however this is plain and manifest that this Paper was published and that this Paper was publiâ—…d in Middlesex that is as plain too now then there is nothing left but this question whether my Lords the Bishops who framed the thing who wrote the thing who signed the thing were not the occasion or cause of its publication or privy or consenting to it my Lord I will reduce it to a very plain point for we are upon a rational question before a rational Court and a rational Jury whether these Lords did all of them in the County of Surry consent to the publishing of this Paper in Middlesex for it is published in Middlesex that we see and if they are guilty of that part of the Information of causing it to be published now what do they say to it say they it is agreed that it is published in Middlesex but it is not proved to be published by us Lord Ch. Iust. No they do not say so they agree it was in Middlesex but not published Mr. Iust. Powel Mr. Solicitor they do agree it was in Middlesex but not published to be sure not by them Lord Ch. Iust. Mr. Solicitor I 'll tell you what they stand upon they say you ought to prove it to be delivered to the King by the Bishops or some body employed by them for upon that went the Resolution that was in William's case that he sent it to the King but here is no body that proves that it was delivered to the King in this case so that how it came to the King Non constat Mr. Sol. Gen. There will be the question between us whether this be not a publication Sir Rob. Sawyer Pray Mr. Solicitor prove your case before you argue it Lord Ch. Iust. First settle what the case is before it be either proved or argued Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord I 'll put you the case here does appear in Middlesex a Paper that is a Libel in it self and this Libel is proved to be written and formed by these persons this Libel coming into Middlesex the question is whether they are privy to it I say in point of presumption it must come from them Lord Ch. Iust. I cannot suppose it I cannot presume any thing Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord I speak of that which is a common presumption a natural presumption what we commonly call a violent presumption which is a legal presumption and has always been allowed for Evidence now whether there be not such a presumption in our Case as to induce your Lordship and the Jury to believe that it cannot be otherwise or at least to put the labour upon them to shew how it came out of their Studies and how it came to the King's hands for it is in their power to shew the truth of this matter how it was if they do not the presumption will lie upon them that the Paper came to the King that is plain enough and its coming to the King's hands is a plain proof of a publication in Middlesex and who should bring it to the King but these Gentlemen in whose power it was there is no Man undertakes to say he lost it then what else is to be believed but that it came from them I speak of common supposition and belief they may very well shew it if it were not so all that we can say in it is here is a Paper in Middlesex this you agreed was once your Paper and in your power pray shew what became of it it lies upon you to clear this doubt Mr. Recorder My Lord there is but this question in the case the question is not whether the owning it be a publication but whether here be any Evidence that they did deliver it to the King now if they did deliver it to the King that will be agreed to me to be a publication Mr. Ius Holloway No doubt of it if you can prove it Mr. Recorder Pray Sir spare me that they did it you have this Evidence first that they were the Authours of this Paper by their own Confession that this was in the County of Middlesex and that when they were asked concerning it they owned it to be their hand Writing now whether you can in the least question after all this their delivering of it to the King or that it came to the King's hands without their knowledge or consent is that which lies before your Lordship for your Judgment Lord Chief Iustice. I will ask my Brothers their Opinion but I must deal truly with you I think it is not Evidence against my Lords the Bishops Mr. Iust. Holloway Truly I think you have failed in your Information you have not proved any thing against my Lords the Bishops in
the County of Middlesex and therefore the Jury must find them not guilty Mr. Attor Gen. I 'le put you but one case my Lord a Man has an opportunity secretly to deliver a Libel into the King's hands when no Body is by and so there can be no proof of the delivery Mr. Iust. Powel 'T is a dangerous thing Mr. Attorney on the other side to convict People of Crimes without proof Mr. Attorney General But shall a Man be permitted thus to affront the King and there be no way to punish it Lord Chief Iustice. Yes there will sure but it will be a very strange thing if we should go and presume that these Lords did it when there is no sort of Evidence of it 't is that which I do assure you I cannot do we must proceed according to Evidence and forms and methods of Law they may think what they will of me but I always declare my mind according to my Conscience Mr. S. Trinder But as to that other point whether their owning of it be a publication has not been particularly spoke to Lord Chief Iustice. Mr. Attorney and Mr. Solicitor if there were enough to raise doubt in the Court so as to leave it to the Jury I would summ up the Evidence Mr. Solicit Gen. My Lord we know it is with the Court these Lords insisted upon it that it was a great while in their hands but it seems as far as our Evidence has gone hitherto their Confession went no farther than that it was their Paper and we must not extend their Confession further than it was but I think we shall offer a fair Evidence that they did deliver it in the County of Middlesex Lord Ch. Iust. Indeed indeed you ought to have gone to this Mr. Solicitor before the Court gave their Opinions Mr. Solicit Gen. Pray call Mr. Blathwayt again Mr. Blathwayt called Lord Ch. Iust. Mr. Solicitor unless you are sure that Mr. Blathwait is a Witness to the publication 't is but spending the Courts time to no purposâ—… to call him Mr. Solicit Gen. We are sure of nothing my Lord but we must make use of our Witnesses according to our Instructions in our Briefs Then Mr. Blathwait appeared Mr. Attor Gen. Mr. Blathwait you were sworn before Mr. Blathwait Yes Sir. Mr. Attor Gen. Your were present when this Paper or Petition was dell vered by the King at the Council-Board Mr. Blathwait Yes I was so Sir. Mr. Attor Gen. Do you remember any thing of the Bishops acknowledging their delivery of it to the King. Mr. Sol. Gen. Mr. Blathwait I would ask you was there any mention or discourse with my Lords the Bishops how that Paper came into the King's hands was there any mention of what it was done for upon the account of Religion or how Mr. Blathwait I don't remember any thing of that Mr. Solicitor at which there was a great Laughter Lord Ch. Iust. Pray let us have no laughing it is not decent can't all this be done quietly without noise pray Mr. Blathwait let me ask you do you remember there was any discourse how that writing came into the Kings hands Mr. Blathwait I received it from the Kings hands and I know it was presented to him by my Lords the Bishops Lord Ch. Iust. How do you know it was presented to the King. Mr. Blathwait I heard the King say so several times Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray mind my question Sir first I ask you who produced the Paper at the Council-Table Mr. Blathwait The King. Mr. Sol. Gen. What said the Bishops when that Paper was shewed them Mr. Blathwait Then as I remember they were asked whether that was the Paper that they delivered to the King Mr. Sol. Gen. Then what said the Bishops Mr. Blathwait They at first scrupled to answer and they said it might be made use of to their prejudice if they owned it Mr. Att. Gen. Pray Mr. Blathwait consider again was that the question put to my Lords the Bishops whether that was the Paper that was presented by them to the King Mr. Blathwait I do think to the best of my remembrance that my Lord Chancellor did ask them to that purpose I cannot speak to the very words Mr. Sol. Gen. And upon this what answer did they make Mr. Blathwait My Lords the Bishops scrupled to answer the first and second time as I told you before but they did own it was the Petition that they presented to the King to the best of my remembrance Mr. Sol. Gen. Did the Archbishop do any thing to own it Mr. Blathwait Yes both my Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of the Bishops did own all the same thing Mr. Sol. Gen. Was this done at Whitehall Mr. Blathwait Yes at the Council-Table L. Ch. Iust. Pray recollect your self and consider what you say did they own that that was the Paper they delivered to the King Mr. Serj. Pemb. Pray my Lord give us leave to ask a question to clear this matter was the question put to them Whether it was the Paper that they delivered or whether it were their hands that were to it Mr. Blathwait My Lord I do not so exactly recollect the words L. Ch. Iust. But pray tell us if you can what the question was Mr. Blathwait My Lord I do not remember the very words but I think if Mr. Serjeant Pemberton be pleased to repeat his question I shall give him a satisfactory answer as well as I can Mr. Serj. Pemberton Sir that which I ask you is this Whether the question that was put to my Lords the Bishops at that time was Whether this was the Paper that they deliver'd to the King or whether those were their hands that was to it Mr. Blathwait My Lord I did always think that it was a plain Case that that was the Paper that they delivered to the King and my Lords the Bishops did never deny but that they gave it to the King and I had it from the King's hands L. Ch. Iust. But we must know from you if you can tell us what the question was that was put to my Lords the Bishops were they asked Whether those were their hands that were to that paper or was it Whether they delivered that paper to the King Mr. Blathwait As to the first part that they owned 't was their hands that I am sure of but as to the other I do not remember what the words were At which there was a great shout Mr. Att. Gen. Pray Mr. Blathwait recollect your self you say the King produced it Mr. Blathwait Yes Sir. Mr. Att. Gen. Do you remember that the King asked them any question upon the producing of it Mr. Blathwait My Lord Chancellor asked them if those were not their hands to the Petition Mr. Sol. Gen. Was there any other matter in discourse whether that was the paper that was delivered by them to the King Mr. Blathwait I cannot so positively say what were the words that my Lord
remember whether or no they were asked if that was the Petition that they delivered to the King Mr. Bridgm. My Lord I have answered that question as directly as I can I do not positively remember that that was the question Lord Ch. Iust. Mr. Solicitor General you must be satisfied when proper questions are fairly answered and therefore pray be quiet Mr. Att. Gen. However we pray we may ask the rest of the Clerks of the Counsel it may be they may remember more Sir Iohn Nicholas you were at the Council-Table that day my Lords the Bishops were examined about this Paper Sir Iohn Nicholas Yes Sir I was Mr. Att. Gen. Pray did you observe that the King produced the Petition Sir Iohn Nicholas No indeed I did not see it Mr. Att. Gen. Did you observe any thing that passed there in discourse Mr. Sol. Gen. Did you observe any questions that were asked the Bishops either by the King or by my Lord Chancellor Sir Iohn Nich. I think my Lord Chancellor did ask them if that was their hands to the Petition and they owned it Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you remember whether they owned that they delivered that Paper to the King Lord Ch. Iust. I 'le ask you Sir Iohn Nicholas did my Lord Chancellor ask them this question is this the Petition you delivered to the King Sir Iohn Nicholas I do not remember that Then there was a great shout Mr. Sol. Gen. Here 's wonderfull great rejoycing that truth cannot prevail Mr. S. Pemberton No Mr. Solicitor truth does prevail Mr. Sol. Gen. You are all very glad that truth is stifled Mr. Serjeant Mr. S. Trinder Pray Sir Iohn Nicholas let me ask you one question was there any discourse about delivering that Petition to the King Sir Iohn Nicholas Indeed I do not remember it Mr. Sol. Gen. There is Mr. Pepy's wee 'll examine him Mr. Pepy's sworn Lord Ch. Iust. Come I 'le ask the questions were you bye at the Council-Board when my Lords the Bishops were committed Mr. Pepy's Yes I was Lord Ch. Iust. What were the questions that were asked either by the King or by my Lord Chancellor Mr. Pepy's My Lord I would remember as well as I could the very words and the very words of the question were I think My Lords do you own this Paper I do not remember any thing was spoken about the delivering but I believe it was understood by every body at the Table that that was the Paper that they had delivered Lord Ch. Iust. Well have you done now But to satisfie you I 'le ask this question was this question asked my Lords was this the Paper you delivered to the King Mr. Pepy's No my Lord. Mr. Att. Gen. Pray Sir do you remember whether the King himself asked the question Mr. Pepy's You mean I suppose Mr. Attorney that these were the words or something that imported their delivering it to the King. Mr. Att. Gen. Yes Sir. Mr. Pepy's Truly I remember nothing of that Mr. Sol. Gen. Did you observe any discourse concerning their delivery of it to the King. Mr. Pepy's Indeed Mr. Solicitor I do not Mr. Att. Gen. Swear Mr. Musgrave Mr. Musgrave Sworn Lord Ch. Iust. You hear the question Sir what say you to it Mr. Musg My Lord I will give as short an acount of it as I can the first time after his Majesty had produced the Petition and it was read at the Board his Grace my Lord Arch Bishop of Canterbury and the other six Reverend Lords Bishops were called in and it were asked of them if they owned that or if it was their hands my Lord Archbishop in the name of the rest did decline answering upon the account that they were there as Criminals and were not obliged to say any thing to their own prejudice or that might hurt them hereafter but if his Majesty would command them and if he would promise that no advantage should be made of whatsoever they confessed then they would answer the question his Majesty made no answer to that but only said he would do nothing but what was according to Law whereupon the Bishops were ordered to withdraw and being called in a second time the Petition was shewn to them and they were asked if they did own it or if it was their hands and I think my Lord Archbishop did say then we will rely upon your Majesty or some such general thing was said and then they did all own it that it was their hands I cannot say the Petition was read to them Mr. Iust. Pow. Mr. Blathwait as I remember it was the third time Mr. Musgrave It was the second time to the best of my remembrance Lord Ch. Iust. Pray Sir was there any question to this purpose is this the Paper you delivered to the King Mr. Musg I do not remember that ever any such direct question was asked Mr. Iust. Allybone But as my Brother Pemberton did very well before distinguish there is a great deal of difference between the owning the subscription of a Paper and between the owning of that Paper Mr. Pepy's did say that they did own the Paper and upon my word that will look very like a Publication Mr. Musg I remember my Lord there was at the same time a question asked because several Copies had gone about the Town whether they had published it and my Lord Archbishop did say he had been so cautious that he had not admitted his own Secretary but writ it all himself and the rest of the Bishops did say they did not publish it nor never gave any Copies of it Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord I confess now it is to be left to the Jury upon this point whether there not being a positive Witness that was by when the thing was done yet upon this Evidence the Jury can't find any otherwise than that the thing was done truly I think we must leave it as a strong case for the King I could have wished indeed for the satisfaction of every body that the proof would have come up to that but we must make it as strong for the King upon the Evidence given as it will bear now my Lord take all this whole matter together here is a Paper composed framed and written by seven learned Men and this must be written by such persons sure for some purpose it is directed as a Petition to the King and this Petition did come to the hands of the King for the King produces it in Counsel and my Lord Archbishop and the rest of the Bishops owned their hands to it then the question is my Lord whether or no there be any room for any body living to doubt in this case that this was not delivered by my Lords the Bishops to the King though it be not a conclusive Evidence of a positive Fact yet unless they shew something on the other side that may give way for a supposition to the contrary that it came out of their hands by surprize or
you but all that I was going to say would have amounted to no more than this That there being no Evidence against us we must of course be acquitted Mr. Just. Holloway My Lord did intend to have said as much as that I dare say L. C. Iust. Well Gentlemen of the Jury we have had Interruption enough Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord I must beg your Pardon for interrupting you now and I am very glad these Gentlemen have given us this Occasion because we shall now be able to clear this Point There is a Fatality in some Causes my Lord and so there is in this we must beg your Patience for a very little while for we have notice that a Person of very great Quality is coming that will make it appear that they made their Addresses to him that they might deliver it to the King. L. C. Iust. Well You see what comes of the Interruption Gentlemen now we must stay Then there was a Pause for near half an hour Mr. Att. Gen. Pray my Lord put the Case that a Man writes a Libel in one County and it is found in another Is not he answerable unless he can shew something that may satisfy the Jury how it came there Mr. Soll. Gen. Ought he not to give an account what became of it L. C. Iust. No look you Mr. Attorney you must look to your Information and then you will find the Case that you put does not come up to it It is for Writing Composing and Publishing and causing to be published and all this is laid in Middlesex Now you have proved none of all these things to be done in the County Mr. Att. Gen. They did in Middlesex confess it was theirs L. C. Iust. Ay but the owning their Hands is not a publication in Middlesex and so I should have told the Jury Mr. Finch I beg your Lordship's pardon for interrupting you Mr. Att. Gen. But my Lord does it not put the Proof upon them to prove how it came out of their Hands into the King's Hands L. C. Iust. No the Proof lies on your part Mr. Pollixfen Pray my Lord give us your favour to dismiss us and the Jury Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord our Witnesses will be here presently Mr. Att. Gen. Sure my Lord the Presumption is on our side Mr. Iust. Powell No the Presumption is against you for my Lord Arch-Bishop lived in Surry and it is proved was not out of Lambeth-House since Michaelmass till he came before the Council Mr. S. Pemb. Pray good my Lord we stand mightily uneasy here and so do the Jury pray dismiss us L. C. Iust. I cannot help it it is your own Fault Then there was another great Pause Lord Chief Iustice. Sir Bartho Shore now we have time to hear your Speech if you will. Mr. Poâ—…fen My Lord there is no Body come nor I believe will come Mr. Soll. Gen. Yes he will come presently we have had a Messenger from him Call Mr. Graham 〈◊〉 He is gone and said he would come presently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 My Lord he will bring ouâ—… Witnesses with him Then there was another 〈◊〉 Mr. S. Pemb. My Lord this is very unusual to stay thus for Evidence L. Ch. Iust. It is so but I am sure you ought not to have any â—…avour Mr. Solicitor Are you assured that you shall have this Witness that you speak of Mr. Soll. Gen. Yes my Lord he will be here presently L. Ch. Iust. We have staid a great while already and therefore it is â—…it that we should have some Oath made that he is coming Mr. Sol. Gen. The Cryer tells you that Mr. Graham did acquaint him that he would return presently L. Ch. Iust. Give him the Book Mr. Soll. Gen. Let your Left-hand give your right-Right-hand the Oath The Cryer sworn L. Ch. Iust. By the Oath that you have taken did Mr. Graham tell you there was any further Witness coming in this Case Cryer Yes my Lord he did he went out of the Hall and returned when your Lorship was directing the Jury and he asked me what the Court were upon and I told him you were directing the Jury and then he said my Lord Sunderland was a coming but he would go and prevent him and afterwards he returned and finding your Lordship did not go on to direct the Jury he said he would go again for my Lord Sunderland whom he had sent away and he is now gone for him and he said he would bring him with him presently L. Ch. Iust. Well then we must stay till the Evidence for the King comes for now there is Oath made that he is coming And after a considerable pause the Lord President came Mr. Attor Gen. My Lord we must pray that my Lord President may be sworn in this Case on behalf of the King. The Lord President sworn Mr. Attor Gen. My Lord with your Lordship's favour I would ask my Lord President a Question Your Lordship remembers where we left this Cause we have brought it to this Point That this Petition came to the King's Hands that it is a Petition written by my Lord Arch-bishop and subscribed by the rest of my Lords the Bishops but there is a Difficulty made whether this Petition thus prepared and written was by them delivered to the King and whether my Lords the Bishops were concerned in the doing of it and were privy oâ—… Parties to the Delivery Now that which I would ask your Lordship my Lord President is Whether they did make their Application to your Lordship to speak to the King. Mr. Soll. Gen. Did they make their Application to your Lordship upon any account whatsoever L. President My Lord my Lord Bishop of St. Aâ—…ph and my Lord Bishop of 〈◊〉 came to my Office and told me they came in the Names of my Lord Arch-bishop of Canterbury and four others of their Brethren and themselves with a Petition which they 〈◊〉 to deliver to his Majesty and they did come to me to know which was the best way of doing it and whether the King would give them leave to do it or not they would have had mâ—… râ—…d tâ—…ir Petition but I refused it and said I thought it did not at all belong to me but I would let the King know their desire and bring them an Answer immediately what his pleasure was in it which I did I acquainted the King and he commanded me to let my Lords the Bishops know they might come when they pleased and I went back and told them so upon which they went and fetch'd the rest of the Bishops and when they came immediately they went into the Bed-Chamber and 〈◊〉 another Room where the King waâ—… this is that I know of the matter Mr. Soll. Gen. About what time was this pray my Lord L. President I believe there could not be much time between my coming from the King and their fetching their Brethren and going in to the King. Mr. Soll. Gen. They were with the King that
day L. President Yes they were Mr. Soll. Gen. Was this before they appeared in Council L. President Yes it was several days before Mr. Soll. Gen. Then I think now my Lord the matter is very plain Mr. Iust. Allibone Did they acquaint your Lordship that their business was to deliver a Petition to the King. L. President Yes they did Mr. Soll. Gen. And they would have had my Lord read it he says Mr. Attorn Gen. And this was the same day that they did go in to the King. L. President The very same day and I think the same hour for it could not be much longer L. Ch. Iust. Now it is upon you truly it will be presumed to be the same unless that you prove that you delivered another Pray my Lord did you look into the Petition L. President No I refused it I thought it did not concern me Mr. Iust. Powel Did you see them deliver it to the King my Lord L. President I was not in the Room when it was delivered Mr. Iust. Powel They did open their Petition to your Lordship did they L. President They offered me to read it but I did refuse L. Ch. Iust. Will you ask my Lord President any Question you that are for the Defendants Sir Rob. Sawyer No my Lord. Mr. Sol. Gen. Then my Lord we must beg one thing for the sake of the Jury if your Lordship can turn your self a little this way and deliver the Evidence you have given over again that they may hear it L. President My Lord I will repeat it as near as I can I think I shall not vary the Sense The Bishops of St. Asaph and Chichester came to my Office I do not know just the day when but it was to let me know that they came in the Name of the Archbishop and four other of their Brethren Is it necessary I should name them L. Ch. Iust. Do it my Lord if you can L. President They were the Bishops of Ely Bath and Wells Bristol and Peterborough they came to let me know in the Name of the Arch-bishop those four and themselves that they had a Petition to deliver to the King if he would give them leave and desired to know of me which was the best way to do it I told them I would know the King's Pleasure and bring them word again they offered me their Petition to read but I did not think it fit for me to do it and therefore I refused and would not read it but I went immediately to the King and acquainted his Majesty with it and he commanded me to let them know they might come when they would which I immediately did they said they would go and speak with some of their Brethren that were not far off in the mean time I gave order that they should be admitted when they came and they did in a little time return and went first into the Bed-Chamber and then into the Room where the King was Mr. Sol. Gen. And this was before they came and appeared at the Council L. President Yes it was Mr. Pollixfen Your Lordship did not read any thing of the Petition L. President No Sir I did not I refused it Mr. Pollixfen Nor does your Lordship know what Petition they did deliver to the King. L. President I did not know any thing of it from them then L. Ch. Iust. Now you may make your Observations upon this two hours hen now we shall hear what Mr. Finch had â—…her to offer I suppose Then my Lord President went 〈◊〉 Mr. Sol. Gen. I think now it is very plain L. Ch. Iust. Truly I 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tell you there was a great presumption before but there is a greater now and I think I shall leave it with some effect to the Jury I cannot see but that here is enough to put the Proof upon you they came to the Lord President and asked him how they might deliver a Petition to the King he told them he would go and see what the King said to it they would have had him read their Petition but he refused it he comes and tells them the King said they might come when they would then those two that came to my Lord President went and gathered up the other four the Arch-bishop indeed was not there but they six came and my Lord President gave Direction they should be let in and they did go into the Room where the King was now this with the King 's producing the Paper and their owning it at the Council iâ—… such a Proof to me as I think will be Evidence to the Jury of the Publication Mr. Pollixfen Then my Lord thus far they only can go the Arch-bishop was not there and so there is no Evidence against him Mr. Sol. Gen. As to the Writing we have given Proof against him for it is all his Hand Mr. Pollixfen That still is in another County and there is nothing proved to be done by my Lord Arch-Bishop in Middlesex and next for the other six Lords my Lord President does not say that this is the Petition that they said they had to deliver to the King nor did he see them deliver any thing to the King but that is left still doubtful and under your Judgment so that it stands upon Presumption not upon Proof that this is the same and left under Consideration Mr. Attor Gen. Then we will leave it fairly to the Jury upon this Fact. Mr. Pollixfen If so then we desire to be heard in our Defence Sir Rob. Sawyer May it please your Lordship and you Gentlemen of the Jury you have heard this Charge which Mr. Attorny has been pleased to make against my Lords the Bishops and that is this That they did conspire to diminish the Royal Authority and Regal Prerogative Power and Government of the King and to avoid the Order of Council and in prosecution of this they did falsely maliciously and seditiously make a Libel against the King under pretence of a Petition and did publish the same in the King's presence This Gentlemen is a very heinous and heavy Charge but you see how short their Evidence is The Evidence they bring forth is only that my Lords the Bishops presented the Paper to the King in the most private and humble manner they could that which they have been so many hours a proving and which they cry up to be as strong an Evidence as ever was given proves it to be the farthest from Sedition in the doing of it that can be and you see what it is it is a Petition to be relieved against an Order of Council which they conceive they were aggrieved by they indeed do not deal fairly with the Court nor with us in that they do not set it forth that it was a Petition L. Ch. Iust. That was over-ruled before Sir Rob. Sawyer I do not insist upon it now so much an Exception to the Information as I do to the Evidence they set this forth to be
is not to be expected that I should repeat all the Speeches or the particular Facts but I will put the Jury in mind of the most Material things as well as my Memory will give me leave but I have been interrupted by so many Long and Learned Speeches and by the length of the Evidence which has been brought in in a very broken unmethodical way that I shall not be able to do so well as I would Gentlemen thus stands the Case It is an Information against my Lords the Bishops his Grace my Lord of Canterbury and the other Six Noble Lords and it is for Preferring Composing Making and Publishing and Causing to be Published a Seditious Libel the way that the Information goes is special and it sets forth That the King was Graciously pleased by his Royal Power and Prerogative to set forth a Declaration of Indulgence for Liberty of Conscience in the Third Year of his Reign and afterwards upon the 27. of April in the Fourth Year he comes and makes another Declaration and afterwards in May orders in Council that this Declaration should be Published by my Lords the Bishops in their several Diocesses and after this was done my Lords the Bishops come and present a Petition to the King in which were contained the Words which you have seen Now Gentlemen the Proofs that have been upon this you 'll see what they are the two Declarations are proved by the Clerks of the Council and they are brought here under the Great Seal a Question did arise whether the Prints were the same with the Original Declarations and that is proved by Hills or his Man that they were Examined and are the same then the Order of Council was produced by Sir Iohn Nicholas and has likewise been read to you then they come to prove the Fact against the Bishops and first they fall to proving their Hands they begun indeed a great way off and did not come so close to it as they afterwards did for some of their Hands they could hardly prove but my Lord Archbishop's Hand was only proved and some others but there might have been some Question about that Proof but afterwards it came to be proved that my Lords the Bishops owned their Hands which if they had produced at first would have made the Cause something shorter than it was The next Question that did arise was about the Publishing of it whether my Lords the Bishops had Published it and it was insisted upon That no body could prove the Delivery of it to the King it was proved the King gave it to the Council and my Lords the Bishops were called in and there they acknowledged their Hands but no body could prove how it came to the King's Hands Upon which we were all of Opinion That it was not such a Publishing as was within the Information and I was going to have directed you to find my Lords the Bishops Not Guilty But it hapned that being Interrupted in my Directions by an Honest Worthy Learned Gentleman the Kings Council took the Advantage and informing the Court that they had further Evidence for the King we staid till my Lord President came who told us how the Bishops came to him to his Office at White-hall and after they had told him their Design That they had a mind to Petition the King they asked him the Method they were to take for it and desired him to help them to the Speech of the King And he tells them he will acquaint the King with their Desire which he does and the King giving leave he comes down and tells the Bishops that they might go and speak with the King when they would and says he I have given Direction that the Door shall be opened for you as soon as you come With that the Two Bishops went away and said they would go and fetch their other Brethren and so they did bring the other Four but my Lord Archbishop was not there and immediately when they came back they went up into the Chamber and there a Petition was Delivered to the King. He cannot speak to that particular Petition because he did not Read it and that is all that he knew of the Matter only it was all done the same Day and that was before my Lords the Bishops appeared at the Council Gentlemen after this was proved then the Defendants came to their Part and these Gentlemen that were of Councel for my Lords let themselves into their Defence by notable Learned Speeches by telling you that my Lords the Bishops are Guardians to the Church and great Peers of the Realm and were bound in Conscience to take care of the Church They have Read you a Clause of a Statute made in Queen Eliz. time by which they say my Lords the Bishops were under a Curse if they did not take care of that Law. Then they shew you some Records One in Richard the Seconds time which they could make little of by reason their Witness could not Read it but it was in short a Liberty given to the King to Dispense with the Statute of Provisors Then they shew you some Journals of Parliament First in the Year 1662. where the King had Granted an Indulgence and the House of Commons Declared it was not fit to be done unless it were by Act of Parliament And they Read the King's Speech wherein he says he wish'd he had such a Power and so likewise that in 1672. which is all nothing but Addresses and Votes or Orders of the House or Discourses either the King's Speech or the Subjects Addresses but these are not Declarations in Parliament that is insisted upon by the Councel for the King That what is a Declaration in Parliament is a Law and that must be by the King Lords and Commons the other is but common Discourse but a Vote of the House or a Signification of their Opinion and cannot be said to be a Declaration in Parliament Then they come to that in 1685. where the Commons take notice of something about the Souldiers in the Army that had not taken the Test and make an Address to the King about it but in all these things as far as I can observe nothing can be gathered out of them one way or other it is all nothing but Discourses Sometimes this Dispensing Power has been allowed as in 〈◊〉 2. time and sometimes it has been denied and the King did once wave it Mr. Sollicitor tells you the Reason There was a Lump of Money in the Case But I wonder indeed to hear it come from him Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord I never gave my Vote for Money I assure you L. Ch. Iust. But those Concessions which the King sometimes makes for the Good of the People and sometimes for the Profit of the Prince himself but I would not be thought to distinguish between the Profit of the Prince and the Good of the People for they are both one and what is the Profit of the Prince
unless my Lords are here in Court I mean Legally in Court for no man is in Court so as to be liable to be charged with an Indictment or Information that is not brought into Court by Legal process or as a prisoner upon a Legal Commitment then my Lord with humble submission we say that it doth appear by this Return that my Lords the Bishops are not here Legally in Court because this Commitment of theirs was not a Legal Commitment and two Objections we have to it The one is that the Persons Committing had no Authority to commit for the Return says that it was by Vertue of a Warrant under the Hands of such and such being Lords of the Council and they we say have no Authority to do this The other Objection is that the Fact for which they were committed they ought not to have been Imprisoned for the Fact charged upon them is in the nature of it a bare Misdemeanour and for such a Fact it is the Right of my Lords the Bishops as Peers of the Realm that they ought to be served with the usual Process of Subpoena and not to be committed to prison These are the two Objections that we have to this Return and this is under favour the proper time for us to make this Objection before the Kings Councel can charge my Lords the Bishops with an Information L. Ch. Iust. What say you to it Mr. Attorney Mr. Att. Gen. With submission my Lord these Gentlemen have out of course and preposterously let themselves in to this Discourse and when all is done we must Recurr to that which we moved to your Lordship before to desire that your Lordship would order the Information to be read and when we call my Lords to plead to the Information then will be their proper time to make this Objection for 't is a strange thing certainly for men to make Objections before they know what it is that they are charged with They say the ground of their Motion is because my Lords the Bishops are here in Court upon the Return of an Habeas Corpus and therefore they come in upon a Commitment as they say for that which they ought not to be committed for at all and we cannot charge them unless they be properly in Court. Now for that it is true if that Commitment of theirs were the only thing that was here before the Court then the Court would if that Commitment were Illegal discharge them of that but when a man is present here in Court brought into Court let him come how he will he is not to have any longer time then that Instant to appear to and be charged with the Information 'T is true upon a Subpoena which is in the Nature of a Summons there a man hath as it were an Essoyn and may make his Excuse and he shall have time but when he is present in Court either as a Person priviledged as an Officer or as a Prisoner he shall be charged presently and these Gentlemen are not to let themselves into Invectives against the Commitment thereby to keep off their being charged with the Information Besides that it is strange these Gentlemen should know the Priviledge of my Lords the Bishops as Peers better then all the Lords of the Council who are most of them themselves Peers and they that make the Objection should have considered whether these Lords that made the Commitment did not think themselves concerned in all the Priviledges of Peerage as well as these seven Noble Lords Sir Rob. Sawyer Is that an Answer to our Objection Mr. Attorney Mr. Att. Gen. I say it is a strange Objection and I answer 't is out of due time for this we say that my Lords the Bishops being now here in Court as Prisoners upon a Commitment and we desiring to charge them with an Information you are not to examine the matter of their Commitment and therefore I do insist upon it that the Information should be read and then you will consider whether they are not bound to plead to it Mr. Finch My Lord I hope Mr. Attorney General will not think Legal Objections to be Invectives Mr. Att. Gen. Truly I know not what you call Legal Objections I do not think yours are so nor do I think Legal Objections are Invectives but I used that Expression as very proper for what you urged against the Commitment L. C. I. Nay Gentlemen don't quarrel about words Mr. Finch My Lord we would not willingly have Words given us to quarrel at Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord the Question is whether we are in the right Method of Practice as to the Course of the Court or they It may be these Gentlemen think to make us angry and take Advantage of our being in a Passion Mr. Finch Mr. Sollicitor we desire to have our Objections answered Mr. Soll. Gen. Nay if you begin to be angry Gentlemen we can be angry too L. C. I. I would have neither of you be Angry Mr. Soll. Gen. It seems they would have an Answer to their Objections but will not suffer us to give it they would first examine whether my Lords the Bishops have been duly Committed that we say is not to be done by the Court as yet your Lordship sees they are actually in Custody by a Commitment of the Lords of the Council that appears by the Return before your Lordship and for what they were Committed what do we now pray for the King First we move for a Habeas Corpus then that this Information may be read and all is in Order to bring this Fact for which they were Committed to a Trial 't is said upon the Return they were sent to the Tower for Contriving Writing and Publishing a Seditious Libel against the Kings Person and Government which I think is Crime enough for a man to deserve to be Committed for they would have you to discharge these Lords from this Commitment the Return as they say being not Legal before the Information be read But we think their Motion is Irregular for here is a Crime charged in the Commitment and upon that Commitment they are here now as Criminals before your Lordship and Mr. Attorney has exhibited an Information for the King which is in the Nature of a Declaration at the Kings Suit and that in this Court which is the Supreme Court now in being for the Trial of Matters of this Nature We will come to that Question whether they were legally Committed when there is a proper time for it but now we find my Lords the Bishops in Court upon a Commitment for a great Crime I repeat it again It is for Contriving Writing and Publishing a Seditious Libel against the Kings Person and against the Kings Government and whether the Kings Counsel shall not have leave to make out this Charge by an Information sure can be no Question at all in this Court I hear them mention the Statute of Edward the Third But that is
Case nor on the other side would I be wanting to Advise and do for my Client what I am able and lawfully may we have laboured all we could to get time for my Lords the Bishops to Imparle to this Information and we have been the more earnest in it because it concerns us who attends this Bar to take what Care we can that the Course of the Court may be observed but as for this Matter we suppose this Practice of the Court is not in Law a good Practice Now what way in the World has any man to bring this so in question as to have a Judicial Resolution of the Court about it but by such a Plea We take it that it is usual and legal for us to have an Imparlance and a man would Imparle but the Court upon Motion refused to give him an Imparlance Is it not think you very fit for the party to have this Judicially entered upon Record where all this Matter will appear and the party may be relieved by writ of Error if the Judgment of the Court should be wrong but truly I cannot see how the Court can refuse the Plea for if so be a Plea be pleaded they have their liberty to Answer it on the other side by a Replication or else to Demur and the Judgment of the Court may be had upon it one way or other but the Court will never go about to hinder any man from pleading where he may plead by Law here is a Plea put in and the Court sure will take no notice what is the Matter of the Plea till the other party have either replied or demurred the same thing may happen in any other Plea that is pleaded and the party will-be without Remedy upon a writ of Error because the Plea being Rejected there does nothing appear upon Record truly for the Court to reject and refuse this Plea would be as hard as the refusing of the Imparlance and we know no way we have to help our selves Mr. Sol. Gen. You might have entered your Suggestion for an Imparlance upon the Roll and then it would have appeared upon Record and if the Court had unjustly denied it you you would have had the benefit of that Suggestion elsewhere Truly My Lord I think if any thing be tricking this is for it is plainly ill pleading Mr. Finch Then pray demur to it Mr. Sol. Gen. No Sir 't is Fencing with the Court and that the Court won't suffer it is only to delay and if we should demur then there must be time for Arguing and what is the Question after all but whether you would be of the same Opinion to Morrow that you are to Day Sir Rob. Sawyer I would put Mr. Sollicitor in mind of Fitz Harris's Case which he knows very well he put it in a Plea and we for the King desired it might not be received but the Court gave him time to put it into Form and I was fain to joyn in Demurrer presently and so may these Gentlemen do if they please Mr. Soll. Gen. Yes Sir Robert Sawyer I do know the Case of Fitz Harris very well I was assigned of Councel by the Court for him we were four of us and there was a Plea put in but no such Plea as this there was an Indictment of High Treason against him in which Case it is agreed on all hands that the party must answer presently but because he suggested here at the Bar says he I have Matter to plead to the Jurisdiction of the Court and shewed what it was I was Impeached before the Lords in Parliament for Treason for the same Matter of which I am here Accused The Court did give him time to put this into Form and we were assigned his Council to draw it up for him and accordingly we did put that Matter into a Plea that we were here Indicted for one and the same Treason for which we were Impeached in Parliament and that that Impeachment was still depending and so we rested in the Judgment of the Court whether we should be put to Answer it here this was a Plea that carried something of weight in it and not such a trifling one as this It is true Sir Robert Sawyer who was then Attorney General did press the Court to over-rule it immediately but it being a matter of some Importance the Court would not do that but had it argued solemnly by Council on both sides and at last there was the Opinion of three Judges against one that the Plea was no good Plea But what is that to such a trifling Plea as this Mr. Att. Gen. Pray my Lord favour me a few words about that Case of Mr. Fitz Harris it is true there was a Plea put in and it is true also that that which brought that Plea to be argued was the Demurrer that was put in by Sir Robert Sawyer who was so zealous and hasty in the matter that because the Court did not presently over-rule the Plea as he desired he immediately Demurred before the rest of the King's Council could offer at any thing about it and thereupon it was put to the Judgment of the Court and no doubt must be argued and spoke to on both sides but where Pleas are really in abuse of the Court the Court never gives any Countenance to them Nay truly I have known another Course taken I am unwilling to mention a Case that hapned much about that time too in this Court because of that regard I have to my Lords the Bishops but Sir Robert Sawyer remembers it very well I am sure it was the Case of one Whitaker who for a thing like this putting in a trifling Plea not only had his Plea rejected but something else was ordered I could shew the Precedent but that I am more tender than to press it in this Case because there the Court ordered an Attachment to go against him but I will put these Gentlemen in mind of another Case and that is the Case of a Peer too it is the Case of my Lord Delameere which they cannot but remember it being in the highest Case a Case of Treason when my Lord Delameere was Arraigned and to be Tryed for High Treason he put in a Plea before my Lord Chancellor who was then High Steward and Sir Robert Sawyer who was then Attorney General prayed the Lord Steward and the Peers to reject it and the Court did reject it as we hope the Court will do this and would never so far delay Justice as to admit of a Plea that carried no Colour in it and there was no Demurrer put into the Plea but it was absolutely refused My Lord in this Case we have had the Judgment of the Court already and therefore we must now desire that this Plea may be rejected Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord we have now gone out of the way far enough already it is time for us to return and bring the Case into its due methods We pray
of May the King's Order of Council for the Reading the Declaration Mr. Gantlâ—… There it is Sir. The Book delivered into Court. Mr. Sol. Gen. Read it I Pray Clerk Reads At the Court at Whitehall the fourth of May 1688. and so reads the Order of Council Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord we have one thing that is mentioned in the Information that this Declaration was Printed if that be denied we will call Henry Hills his Majesties Printer because we would prove all our Information as it is laid Lord Ch. Iust. You must do so Mr. Sollicitor you must prove the whole Declaration Mr. Sol. Gen. Cryer call Henry Hills He was called but did not presently appear Mr. Sol. Gen. Call Mr. Bridgman though these Declarations prove themselves we have them here Printed but Swear Mr. Bridgeman Mr. Bridgeman Sworn Mr. Sol. Gen. Shew Mr. Bridgeman the two Declarations Lord Ch. Iust. What do you ask him Mr. Sol. Gen. We ask you Sir if the two Declarations were Printed Mr. Bridgeman What Declarations do you mean Mr. Solliitor Mr. Sol. Gen. You know what Declarations I mean well enough but weâ—…l ask you particularly you know the Declaration that was made the 4th of April in the third Year of the King. was it Printed Mr. Bridgeman Yes it was Printed by the King's Order Mr. Sol. Gen. Was that of the 27th of April in the 4th Year of the King Printed Mr. Bridgman Yes they were both Printed by the King's Order Mr. At. Gen. Then the next thing in course is the Bishops Paper Sir Rob. Sawyer Mr. Bridgeman pray let me ask you one Question Did you ever compare the Print with that under Seal Mr. Bridgeman I did not compare them Sir Robert Sawyer Mr. Sol. Gen. He does Swear they were Printed by the King's Order Sir Robert Sawyer Good Mr. Sollicitor give me leave to ask him a Question Can you Swear then that they are the same Mr. Bridgman I was not asked that Question Sir. Mr. Sol. Gen. Come then Mr. Bridgeman I 'le ask you Do you believe they are the same Sir Rob. Sawyer Is that an Answer to my Question Mr. Sol. Gen. We must ask him Questions as well as you Sir Robert what say you Do you believe it to be the same Lord Ch. Iust. You hear Mr. Sollicitors Question answer it Mr. Bridgeman Mr. Bridgeman Yes my Lord I do believe it Lord Ch. Iust. Well that 's enough Mr. At. Gen. If there were occasion we have them here Compared and they are the same Sir Rob. Sawyer With Submission my Lord in all these Cases if they will prove any Fact that is laid in an Information they must prove it by those that know it of their own Knowledge Do you know it to be the same Mr. Sol. Gen. That 's very well Sir. Sir Rob. Sâ—…yer Ay so it is Mr. Sollicitor It is a wonderful thing my Lord that we cannot be permitted to ask a Question Do you know it to be the same Mr. Bridgeman I ask you again Mr. Bridgeman I have not compared them I tell you Sir Robert Sawyer Sir Rob. Sawyer Then that is no Proof Lord Ch. Iust. Would you have a Man Swear above his Belief he tells you he believes it is the same Sir Rob. Sawyer Is that Proof of an Information Lord Ch. Iust. Well you 'l have your time to make your Objections by and by Mr. At. Gen. Then Swear Sir Iohn Nicholas Sir Iohn Nicholas I am Sworn already Mr. At. Gen. I see you have a Paper in your Hand Sir Iohn Nicholas pray who had you that Paper from Sir Iohn Nicholas I will give you an Account of it as well as I can Mr. Pollixfen Before they go to another thing my Lord we think they have failed in their Proof of their Information about the Printing this Declaration Mr. At. Gen. Where is Mr. Hills Mr. Iust. Allyb. They have laid That it was printed by the King's Order and it is such a matter Mr. Sollicitor as you may clear if you will sure Mr. Sol. Gen. There is Mr. Hills now I see him L. C. Iust. I was going to give Order that you should send to the Printing-house for him Mr. Iust. Allyb. They may put this matter out of doubt too if they will on the other side for I see they have a Copy in Print and there 's the Original they may compare them if they please Mr. Sol. Gen. I am very glad to hear such a strong Objection Sir Rob. Sawyer We would clear the way for you Mr. Sollicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. No you put Straws in our way we shall be able enough to clear it without your help Swear Mr. Hills and young Mr. Graham here Hills and Graham sworn Mr. Sol. Gen. Mr. Graham did you compare any of these Printed Declarations with the Original Graham Yes I did compare some of them and did make Amendments as I went along Mr. Sol. Gen. 〈◊〉 one that you have compar'd with the Original Mr. Att. Gen. Hills is here himself we 'll ask him Are you sworn Sir Cryer He is sworn Mr. Att. Gen. Pray were the King's Declarations for Liberty of Conscience printed both of them Hills Ay an 't please you Sir. Mr. Att. Gen. You printed them I think Hills Yes I did print them Sir Rob. Sawyer Mr. Hills you say they were printed Upon your Oath after they were printed did you examin them with the Original under Seal Hills They were examined before they were printed Sir Rob. Sawyer Did You examin them Hills I did not here 's one that did Mr. Sol. Gen. Who is that Hills It is Mr. Williams here Mr. Sol. Gen. Swear him Williams sworn Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you hear Williams Do you know that the King's Declaration for Liberty of Conscience two of them one of the 4th of April and the other of the 27th of April were printed Williams Yes my Lord. Mr. Sol. Gen. Did you examin them after they were printed by the Copy they were printed by Williams Yes I did Mr. Sol. Gen. Where had you the Copy who had you it from Williams I had it from Mr. Hills Sir Rob. Sawyer Mr. Williams did you examin them with the Original under the Great Seal Williams The First Declaration I did Sir Rob. Sawyer The Second Declaration is the main Williams The Second was Compos'd by the First Sir Rob. Sawyer Why is there no more in the Second Declaration than there was in the First Williams Yes there is Sir. Sir Rob. Sawyer Did you examin That with the Original under the Great Seal Williams No I did not Mr. Sol. Gen. Can any one tell who did examin it under the Great Seal Mr. Finch Pray what did you examin it by Mr. Williams Williams By a Copy that I receiv'd from Mr. Hills Mr. Att. Gen. Then we will go on and we desire Sir Iohn Nicholas to give an account where he had that Paper that he has in his hand Mr. Finch My Lord it does not appear that
the Copy that was printed is the true Copy of the Declaration Mr. Att. Gen. He says he had it from Mr. Hills Mr. Finch Pray Mr. Hills what did you examin that Copy by which you gave to Mr. Williams Hills I had the Copy from Mr. Bridgeman Mr. Finch Did you examin it with the Original under the Great Seal Hills I did not examin it I had it from Mr. Bridgeman Mr. Finch What was it under Seal Mr. Bridgeman It was the Original signed by the King. Mr. Finch But I ask you was it under Seal Mr. Bridgeman Not under the Great Seal it was not it was the very Declaration the King signed Sir Rob. Sawyer But it ought to be compar'd with the Original or it is no good proof that it is the same Mr. Sol. Gen. Sir Robert Sawyer you understand Collation better sure you should be asham'd of such a weak Objection as this Williams We never bring our Proof to the Great Seal Sir Rob. Sawyer But if you will have it Proof at Law you must have it compared with the Original Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you think there is any great stress to be laid upon that we only say it was printed Sir Rob. Sawyer But you have made it part of your Information and therefore you must prove it L. C. Iust. I think there 's proof enough of that there need no such nicety Mr. Pollixfen Well my Lord we must submit let them go on we won't stand upon this Mr. Att. Gen. Then pray let me go on Where had you that Paper Sir Iohn Nicholas Sir Iohn Nicholas I had this Paper from the King's Hand L. C. Iust. Put it in Mr. Sol. Gen. Who had you it from do you say Sir I. Nich. From the King. Mr. Sol. Gen. About what time had you it from the King Sir Sir I. Nich. I had it twice from the King. Mr. Sol. Gen. When was the first time Sir Sir I. Nich. The first time was in Council the 8th of this month Mr. Sol. Gen. What became of it afterwards Sir I. Nich. The King had it from me the 12th and the 13th I had it from the King again Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray deliver it this way into the Court We will now go on and prove the Bishops hands to it This is the Paper upon which we bring this Information Gentlemen it is all the Hand-writing of my Lord Archbishop and signed by Him and the rest of the Bishops Mr. Att. Gen. I suppose my Lords the Bishops will not put us to prove it they will own their Hands L. C. Iust. Yes Mr. Attorney their Council will put you to prove it I perceive your best way is to ask nothing of them Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord we will desire nothing of them we will go on to our Proofs Call Sir Thomas Exton Sir Richard Raynes Mr. Brooks Mr. Recorder and Mr. William Middleton Sir Thomas Exton appeared and was sworn L. C. Iust. What do you ask Sir Thomas Exton Mr. Att. Gen. Pray convey that Paper to Sir Thomas Exton Mr. Sol. Gen. Shew that Paper to Sir Thomas Exton Sir Thomas I would ask you one question Do you know the Hand-writing of my Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Sir Thomas Exton I 'll give your Lordship what account I can Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray Sir answer my question Do you know his Hand-writing Sir Tho. Exton I never saw him write five times in my life Mr. Sol. Gen. But I ask you upon your Oath do you believe that to be his Hand-writing Sir Tho. Exton I do believe this may be of his Hand-writing Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you believe all the Body of it to be of his Hand-writing or only part of it Sir Tho. Exton I must believe it to be so for I have seen some of his Hand-writing and this is very like it Mr. Sol. Gen. What say you to the Name do you believe it to be his Hand-writing Sir Tho. Exton Yes I do Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you know any of the rest of the Names that are upon that Paper Sir Tho. Exton No I do not L. C. Iust. Do you for the Defendants ask Sir Tho. Exton any Question Sir Rob. Sawyer No my Lord. Mr. Att. Gen. Then call Sir Richard Raynes Sir Tho. Exton My Lord Sir Richard Raynes has been sick this month and has not been at the Commons Mr. Sol. Gen. We have no need of him Call Mr. Brooks Mr. Brooks sworn Mr. Att. Gen. Pray shew Mr. Brooks that Paper Mr. Sol. Gen. Mr. Brooks I ask you this Question Do you know my Lord Archbishop's Hand-writing Mr. Brooks Yes my Lord. Mr. Att. Gen. Pray look upon that Paper do you take that to be my Lord Archbishop's Hand Mr. Brooks Yes my Lord I do believe it to be my Lord Archbishop's Hand Mr. Att. Gen. What say you to the whole Body of the Paper Mr. Brooks I do believe it to be his Hand Mr. Att. Gen. What do you say to his Name there Mr. Brooks I do believe this Name is his Hand-writing Mr. Sol. Gen. Call Mr. William Middleton Mr. Att. Gen. Pray Mr. Brooks don't go away but look upon the Names of the Bishop of St. Asaph and my Lord of Ely. Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you know my Lord Bishop of St. Asaph's Hand-writing Mr. Brooks I have seen my Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of St. Asaph's Hand-writing and I do believe this is his hand Mr. Sol. Gen. Look you upon the Name of my Lord of Ely do you know his Hand-writing Mr. Brooks My Lord I am not so well acquainted with my Lord of Ely's Writing Mr. Sol. Gen. But have you seen his Writing Mr. Brooks Yes I have Mr. Sol. Gen. Is that his Writing do you think Mr. Brooks It is like it Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you believe it to be his Hand Mr. Brooks Truly I do believe it Sir Geo. Treby Did you ever see him write Mr. Brooks No Sir. Mr. Sol. Gen. But he has seen his Writing Sir Geo. Treby How do you know that it was his Hand-writing that you saw Mr. Brooks Because he own'd it L. C. Iust. How do you know it do you say Mr. Brooks I know it I say because I have seen a Letter that he writ to another person which he afterwards own'd L. C. Iust. What did he own Mr. Brooks Mr. Brooks That he wrote a Letter to another person which I saw Sir Geo. Treby To whom Sir Sir Rob. Sawyer Have you the Letter here Sir Mr. Brooks No Sir the Letter was writ to my Lord Bishop of Oxford Sir Geo. Treby Can you tell what was in that Letter Mr. Att. Gen. What is that to this Question You ask him how he knows his Hand-writing and says he I did not see him write but I have seen a Letter of his to the Lord Bishop of Oxford L. C. Iust. And he does say my Lord of Ely own'd it to be his Hand that is there Mr. Sol. Gen. No my Lord that 's a
mistake he own'd a Letter that he had writ to the Bishop of Oxford to be his Hand-writing and by comparison of this with that says he I take this to be his Hand-writing Mr. Brooks That is my meaning my Lord. Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray speak out and tell us what are the reasons that makes you say you believe this to be the Bishop of Ely's Writing Mr. Brooks Because it resembles a Letter that I have by me of his writing to the Bishop of Oxford Mr. Sol. Gen. And you say he own'd that Letter to be his Mr. Brooks My Lord Bishop of Oxford did answer it and I waited upon the Bishop of Ely with the Answer and he did own it Sir Geo. Treby How did he own it Sir Mr. Brooks I had some Communication with my Lord of Ely about the substance of that Letter and therefore I apprehended he own'd it Mr. Iust. Powell That 's a strange Inference Mr. Sollicitor to prove a man's Hand Mr. Att. Gen. We have more Evidence but let this go as far as it can Mr. Serj. Pemberton Certainly my Lord you will never suffer such a Witness as this L. C. Iust. Brother Pemberton I suppose they can prove it otherwise or else this is not Evidence Mr. Iust. Powell So they had need for it is a strange Inference of Mr. Sollicitor that this is a Proof of my Lord of Ely's Hand-writing Mr. Iust. Holloway The Bishop of Oxon was dead before any of this matter came in agitation Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord we will bring other Proofs Call Mr. Chetwood Mr. Smith Mr. Chetwood and Mr. Smith sworn Mr. Sol. Gen. Mr. Chetwood we would know of you if you know my Lord Bishop of Ely's Hand-writing Mr. Chetwood I never saw him write Mr. Sol. Gen. That 's not an Answer to my Question Do you know his Hand-writing Mr. Chetwood I do not certainly know it Mr. Sol. Gen. Have you seen any of it Mr. Chetwood I have seen my Lord of Ely's Writing that has been said to be his L. C. Iust. But surely you had better take a Witness that has seen him write Mr. Iust. Powell I think 't is hardly possible for a man to prove his Hand that has not seen him write L. C. Iust. I think 't is better proof indeed to bring some that has seen him write Mr. Chetwood My Lord 't is a long time since I saw my Lord of Ely's Writing L. C. Iust. Pray bring some other Proof if you have it Bp. of Peterburgh My Lord we are here as Criminals before your Lordship and we are prosecuted with great Zeal I beg your Lordship that you will not be of Councel against us to direct 'em what Evidence they shall give L. C. Iust. My Lord of Peterburgh I hope I have not behaved my self any otherwise hitherto than as becomes me I was saying this and I think I said it for your Lordships advantage That this was not sufficient Proof and I think if your Lordship observed what I said it was for you and not against you Bp. of Peterb It was to direct them against us how they should give Evidence Mr. Serj. Pemberton Pray my Lord of Peterburgh sit down you 'll have no wrong done you Sir. Rob. Sawyer We that are of Council will take care of that and pray my Lord will you please to pass it by L. C. Iust. We are not used to be so serv'd and I will not be used so Mr. Sol. Gen. If your Lordship pleases to pass that by for what your Lordship said was in favour of my Lords the Bishops but I see they do not take it so Mr. Att. Gen. Pray Mr. Chetwood do you look upon the Name of my Lord of Ely do you believe that to be his Hand-writing Mr. Chetwood I do believe it is Sir Rob. Sawyer That 's very well when he says he never saw him write Mr. Iust. Powell What is the reason of that belief of his I would feign know Mr. Chetwood I have formerly seen his Hand I think it was his but I never saw Lord of Ely write his Hand Sir Rob. Sawyer Then the Question is Whether this be Evidence Mr. Finch How do you know that that which you saw formerly was my Lord of Ely's Hand Mr. Chetwood I have no such Certainty as positively to swear that that was his Hand Mr. Sol. Gen. We will go on to other Proofs and if we want better Evidence at the end we will argue with them Mr. Chetwood I am not certain that what I saw was my Lord of Ely's Hand-writing because I never saw him write Mr. Sol. Gen. You do very well to shew your good affection Mr. Att. Gen. Mr. Smith I would ask you this Question Do you know my Lord of Ely's Hand-writing Mr. Smith I have seen it often Mr. Att. Gen. Look upon the Name of my Lord of Ely in that Paper Do you believe it to be my Lord's Hand-writing or no Mr. Smith I did not see him write it Sir I can not tell whether it is or no. L. C. Iust. Did you ever see his Name Mr. Smith Yes but it was a great while ago and here are but seven Letters and I cannot judge by that I was better acquainted with his Hand-writing heretofore Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray Sir answer me Do you believe it to be his Writing or do you not Mr. Smith I believe it may for I did not see him write it Mr. Sol. Gen. But my Question is Do you believe it or do you not Mr. Smith I say I was better acquainted with it heretofore than I am now Mr. Sol. Gen. But pray answer my Question Do you believe that to be my Lord of Ely's Hand-writing or do you not Mr. Smith I believe it may Sir. Sir Rob. Sawyer Why do you believe it Mr. Smith I have no other reason to believe it but because I have seen something like it Mr. Iust. Powell How long ago is it since you saw him write Mr. Smith I have not seen him write so as to take notice of it for some years I could better judge of it when he writ his Name Turner than now it is Ely because there was more Letters to judge by Mr. Middleton sworn L. C. Iust. Here 's Mr. Middleton what do you call him for Mr. Sol. Gen. To prove many of their Hands Mr. Att. Gen. Pray shew him that Paper Mr. Sol. Gen. First Mr. Middleton do you know my Lord Archbishop's Hand-writing Mr. Middleton I have seen his Grace's Hand-writing Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you believe it to he his Mr. Middleton It is very like it Mr. Sol. Gen. But do you believe it or do you not Mr. Middleton I do believe it Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you know my Lord Bishop of St. Asaph's Hand-writing Mr. Middleton I never saw it as I know of Mr. Sol. Gen. What do you say to my Lord of Ely his Name is next Mr. Middleton It is like his Lordship's hand Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you
that you received as you say were written by my Lord himself or by his Secretary Mr. Clavell I have received Letters from him and his Secretary too Sir G. Treby But were you present with him when he writ any Letters with his own Hand Mr. Sol. Gen. You do not mean a Letter to your self sure Sir George Sir G. Treby No Sir I say any Letters Mr. Clavell I have been present with my Lord often but I cannot say I have seen my Lord write L. C. I. He has here told you he has had several Letters of my Lords own Hand and from his Secretary too Mr. I. Powell He has said it but you see he says he never saw him write Mr. Sol. Gen. We have given Evidence against my Lord Arch-Bishop Lord Bishop of Ely St. Asaph Peterborough and Bristol Mr. I. Powell Certainly Mr. Sollicitor you mistake But go on Mr. Sol. Gen. We have given Evidence I say against them Sir but whether it be sufficient Evidence we shall Argue by and by Call Mr. Hooper and Mr. Chetwood again Mr. Chetwood appeared Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you know the Hand-writing of my Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells Mr. Chetwood I have seen it Twice or Thrice but it is a considerable time since I did see it Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you believe that is his Hand-writing Mr. Chetwood I never saw him writâ—… his Name in my Life Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray look upon the Name and tell us what you believe of it Mr. Chetwood I believe it may but I do not certainly know it to be his Hand I rather believe it is my Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells his Hand than I believe that other to be my Lord of Peterboroughs Sir G. Treby Do you believe that to be my Lord of Peterborough's Hand or no Mr. Chetwood I say I rather believe that this is the Bishop of Bath and Wells his Writing than that which is above it or below it to be their Writing but truly I do not distinctly know my Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells his Hand Mr. Sol. Gen. Call Mr. Hooper L. C. I. You are very lame in this matter Mr. Sol. Gen. The Witnesses are unwilling and we must find out the Truth as well as we can Mr. Hooper did not appear Mr. Sol. Gen. Call Mr. Iames and Mr. Powell Mr. James appeared and was Sworn Mr Sol. Gen. Do you know my Lord Bishop of Bristol's Writing Mr. Iames Mr. Iames. Yes I believe I do but I am not so certain because my Lord Writes several times several Hands Mr. Sol. Gen. Shew him the Paper Is that my Lord of Bristol's Hand Mr. Iames. I cannot say it is or no. Mr. Sol. Gen. What do you believe Mr. Iames. It looks like his Hand and that 's all I can say Mr. Sol. Gen. But pray hearken and Answer to what I ask you you are prepared for one Question it may be and I shall ask you another upon your Oath Do you believe it to be the Hand-writing of my Lord of Bristol Mr. Iames. Upon my Oath I can only say it looks like it that 's all L. C. I. Did you ever see him Write Mr. Iames. Yes my Lord I have seen his Hand-writing several times and it is like his Hand-writing that is all I can say Mr. Sol. Gen. Sir remember you are upon your Oath and Answer my Question Mr. Iames. Upon my Oath I know no more than that Sir William Williams Mr. Sol. Gen. I ask you Sir whether you believe it to be his Hand or not Mr. Iames. My Lord it looks like his Hand and it may be his Hand Mr. Att. Gen. But you do think and believe one way or other What do you believe Mr. Iames. It may be his Hand for what I know and it may not Mr. Sol. Gen. It may be your Hand Mr. Iames. No Sir it cannot be mine I am sure Mr. Sol. Gen. What do you believe Mr. Iames. I believe it may be his Hand or it may not be his Hand that is all I can say L. C. I. Come Sir you must Answer fairly Do you believe it to be his Hand or do you not Mr. Iames. Yes I do believe it Mr. Att. Gen. You are very hard to believe methinks Mr. Iames. No I am not Mr. Sol. Gen. You do very well now Mr. Iames when you do well we 'll commend you Mr. Att. Gen. Call Mr. Nathaniel Powell Mr. Powell was Sworn Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray Sir let 's know what 's your Name Mr. Powell My Name is Nathaniel Powell Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray do you know the Hand-writing of my Lord Bishop of Chichester Mr. Powell I have not seen the Paper Sir. Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you know his Hand-writing Mr. Powell Yes I believe I do Mr. Sol. Gen. Look upon that Name of his Mr. Powell I did not see my Lord Write that Mr. Sol. Gen. Who says you did no Body asks that of you how you Answer Pray Sir remember your Oath and Answer seriously Do you believe it to be his Writing or no Mr. Powell I believe it is like my Lord's Hand-writing but I did never see him Write it Mr. Sol. Gen. No Body says you did Mr. Powell Therefore I cannot Swear positively it is his Hand Mr. Sol. Gen. We do not ask that neither Mr. Powell I cannot tell whether it be his Hand or no. L. C. I. Sir you must Answer the Question directly and seriously Do you believe it or do you not believe it Mr. Powell I cannot tell what to believe in the Case Mr. Sol. Gen. Then I ask you another Question upon your Oath Do you believe it is not his Hand Mr. Powell I cannot say that neither Mr. Sol. Gen. Once again I ask you upon your Oath Do you believe it to be his Hand I ask you plainly and let Mankind Judge of you Mr. Powell I tell you Sir I cannot tell what to believe Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord if these things be endured there will be an end of all Testimony if Witnesses do not answer fairly to the Questions that are asked them Mr. I. Powell Truly to me for a Man to Swear his Belief in such a matter is an extraordinary thing Mr. Sol. Gen. He is obliged to answer Questions when they are fairely put to him Mr. Pollixfen I think that is a hard Question not to be Answered Mr. Sol. Gen. Make your Exceptions to the Evidence if you please L. C. I. First he says He knows his Hand then he says He has seen him write and then he says He did not see him write this but he shuffles he won't answer whether he believes it or not Mr. Pollixfen The Question is Whether belief in any case be Evidence Mr. Sol. Gen. If they have a mind to a Bill of Exceptions upon that point let them Seal their Bill and we 'll Argue it with them when they will in the mean time we 'll go on and that which we now pray my Lord is That this Paper
I agree with them it is not For if we had brought three or four Men that had seen them Write this very Paper and put their Names to it that had been a stronger Evidence than this that we have given but whether we do not give such a sort of Evidence as may induce the Jury to belive that this is their Paper and their Hands to it we submit they say This is such a method as never was taken but I admire that that should be said by Men of their Experience and Knowledge in the Law for is there any thing more usual or any other course taken for the proof of Hands than for a Wittness to say He knows the Hand of the Party very well for he has often seen his Hand-writing or received Lettters from him and if you shew him the thing that you would prove to be his Hand and he says I do believe this to be his Hand for this Reason Because I have had other things of his Writing Certainly in the Experience of any Man that has practised this is an Evidence that is given every day and allowed for Evidence For the Case of Mr. Sidney which your Lordship has heard mentioned it is certainly very opposite to this purpose it is insisted upon and pretended That that was Evidence because it was found in his Study but without all doubt that would not be the reason for may not a Book of another Man 's Writing be found in my Study and he insisted upon it in his own Defence but the Answer was That it should be left as the Question Whether the Jury would believe it upon the Evidence that was given of its being his own Hand-writing And so in this Case though it be not so strong Evidence as if we had brought those that had seen them Write it yet Evidence it is and whether it be sufficient to satisfie the Jury may be a Question but no Question it is good Evidence in Law. Mr. Sol. Gen. It is a wonderful thing they say That such Evidence should be offered but truly my Lord it is a much stranger thing to hear Mr. Serj. Pemberton say It was never done before and then to make that Remark to your Lordship upon the Case of Sidney which I 'le put to your Lordship and the Court as a Case and let him contradict me if he can and then we shall see how far it goes Sidney was Indicted for High Treason and the Treason insisted upon was A Writing supposed to be his it being found in his Study the Question was Whether it was his Hand-writing or no there was no positive Evidence that is was his Hand-writing there was no Evidence produced that proved it to be his Hand-writing for there was no one that Swore That they they saw him Write it there was nothing proved but the similitude of Hands Ay but says Mr. Serj. Pemberton It was found in his Study will Mr. Serj. Pemberton be content that all the Libels that are found in his Study shall for that reason be adjudged to be Libels to be his Hand-writing and he to be a Libeller for them I think he will make a severe Declamation against that and he would have very good reason for it Certainly that which was Evidence in one Man's Case will be Evidence in another God forbid there should be any such distinction in Law and therefore I conclude that this is good Evidence Mr. Serj. Pemberton The Court went upon this That it was found in his Study and compared with Letters and Bills of Exchange produced in Court which were Sworn to be of his Hand-writing Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord I was by all the time for I was ordered to attend him in the Tower and therefore I can tell what passed as well as any Body My Lord they proved no more as to that Libel but only by Comparison of Hands they had no other proof in that Case but by comparing the Hand-writing and that was insisted upon to be a mighty fallible thing That which they would have for us to compare Paper with Paper it is true would make the proof somewhat stronger if we could in such a Case as this be able to produce such Evidence but I appeal to your Lordship and shall leave it to the Jury to consider which is better Evidence these Men that have been produced that have been Conversant with these Lords and acquainted with their Hand-writing and who as your Lordship sees are not willing Men to give Evidence they avoid it as much as they can and they Swear it all to be the Hand-writing of the Archbishop of Canterbury as they believe which is as far as any Man can Swear One says the whole Body of the Paper is my Lord of Canterbury's Hand and he knows it very well so that we are not upon a single Name but a whole Paper that contains many Lines and this is as much as can be proved by any one that did not see the thing Written Then my Lord for the rest of the Company the Evidence is not so strong against every one of them as it is against my Lord Archbishop but is strong enough certainly to Convict them of what we accuse them of and pray my Lord what was the Objection in Sidney's Case but what has been mentioned here That any Man's Hand might be Counterfeited I remember in that Case there was one Mr. Wharton a young Gentleman then in the Court that undertook to the Court That he would Counterfeit that Hand presently and he that was to Swear the Comparison should not know which was the one and which was the other which certainly was a stronger Case than this And I see some of the Learned Gentlemen that are now standing at the Bar who pressed this matter very hard against Mr. Sidney and Mr. Sidney lost his Life upon that Comparison of Hands though Mr. Wharton did Testifie how easie a matter it was to have a Man's Hand Counterfeited and we all know was a Man of Value and Quality so there is a President for Mr. Serj. Pemberton that never heard of this Law before They say the proving of similitude of Hands is no Evidence unless you prove the actual Writing what a condition then will England be in when Witnesses are Dead Is it not the most common practice that can be to produce Witnesses to prove such Men are Dead whose Names are set as Witnesses to Deeds and they Swear They believe it to be the Hand-Writing of those Witnesses Can there be any greater Evidence of such a Case unless it be the confession of the Party himself My Lord we are now only upon reading this Paper We have been heard and they have been heard now we pray the Paper may be Read. Mr. Recorder We pray it may be Read. Mr. Serj. Levinz If your Lordship please Mr. Sol. Gen. We are not to be replied upon Mr. Serjeant L. C. I. You have spoke Brother Levinz and you have
spoke Brother Pemberton and I would willingly hear you what you have to say but we must not have vying and revying for then we shall have no end Mr. Serj. Levinz I would offer your Lordship some new matter which has not been touched upon yet why it is not to be Read. L. C. I. What 's that Brother Mr. Serj. Levinz All the proof that has been given whatsoever it amounts to has been only of its being Written but no proof has been given of its being Written in the County of Middlesex where the Information is laid and the matter is Local Mr. Sol. Gen. First Read it and then make your Objection Mr. Recorder My Lord as to the Evidence that has been given I would only put your Lordship in mind of one Case and that was the Case of Sir Samuel Barnardiston and the great Evidence there was the proof of its being his Hand-writing and that being proved was sufficient to Convict him of a Libel for they could not believe Sir Samuel Barnardiston was Guilty of making Libels unless they were proved to be his Hand-writing Sir Robert Sawyer He owned them to be his Hand-writing L. C. I. If you do expect my Opinion in it whether this be good Evidence and whether this Paper be proved or no I am ready to give it Mr. Finch My Lord I desire to be heard before the Opinion of the Court be given Mr. Sol. Gen. If there be not proof enough to induce the Jury to believe this is their Paper yet sure there is enough to Read it Sir Robert Sawyer My Lord we have not been heard to this yet Mr. Sol. Gen. Why is this fit to be suffered L. C. I. Mr. Sol. I am always willing to hear Mr. Finch Mr. Sol. Gen. But I hope your Lordship and the Court are not to be Complemented into an unusual thing Mr. Serj. Pemberton It is not a Complement but Right and Justice Mr. Sol. Gen. Certainly it is Right and Justice that there should be some limits put to Men's speaking that we may know when to have an end Sir Robert Sawyer Mr. Sollicitor does mistake the right my Lord for we desire to be heard to this Point as not having spoke to it yet Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray Sir let me make my Objection to your being heard for I believe you and I have been chid several times for speaking over and over the same thing Sir R. Sawyer This that we now offer iâ—… not to the same Point that we have spoken to already Mr. Sol. Gen. We are now speaking to the Reading of the Paper and you have spoken to it already Sir R. Sawyer If the Court will please to hear us we have that to offer against the Reading of that Paper which has not been offered yet L. C. I. Sir Robert Sawyer I take it it is in the Breast of the Court â—…o heâ—… when they will and as much as they will and whom they will for if Three or Four have been heard of a side to speak what they will the Court may very well depend upon the Learning of those Three or Four that they say what can be said upon the Point and that 's enough but if Six or Seven desire to be heard over and over to the same thing certainly the Court may stop at Three or Four if they will. Sir R. Sawyer This is a new Objection that none of us have been heard to yet Mr. Finch My Lord that which I offer is not contrary to the Rules of Law nor contrary to the Practice of the Court nor was I going any way to invade that Priviledge which Mr. Sollicitor claims of making Objections and not receiving an Answer Mr. Sol. Gen. What a fine Declamation you have now made I never claimed any such right but I oppose your being heard over and over to the same thing Mr. Att. Gen. Pray my Lord let 's come to some Issue in this matter L. C. I. I will hear you but I would not have you introduce it with a reflection upon the King's Council Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord if you impose that upon him you stop his Mouth for some Men cannot speak without reflection L. C. I. On the other side pray Mr. Sollicitor give us leave to hear fairly what they have to say for I perceive he cannot offer to speak but you presently stop his Mouth Mr. Finch My Lord that which I was going to say is another matter than any thing that has been yet offered We say that this Paper ought not to be Read for that they are obliged by Law to prove their Information and consequently having laid a particular place where the thing was done in the Information they ought to prove that this was done in that place The Evidence that they have given is of my Lords the Bishops Writing this Paper and they have laid it to be done in Middlesex and this with submission to your Lordship is local and they must prove it to be Written in Middlesex where they have laid it or else they fail in their proof This is another Objection which as yet hath not been spoken to That if there be a proof of their Hand-writing yet there is no proof where that Hand was Written and therefore they are not yet got so far as to have it Read against my Lords Mr. Att. Gen. For that Point my Lord we say This would have been as properly said after the Paper had been Read when they come to make Objections against our Proof by way of Defence and with submission it had been more proper then than it is now For what are we now doing My Lord we are Proving that such a Paper was Subscribed by my Lords the Bishops and Sir Iohn Nicholas gives you an Account that he had it from his Majesty at the Council and that certainly is in the County of Middlesex and iâ—… will concern you to Prove that it was Written elsewhere Mr. Serj. Pemberton That 's very well Mr. Attorney sure you do not think as you speak Mr. Att. Gen. Here is a Paper Composed and Written by you that Sir Iohn Nicholas says he had from his Majesty how he came by it I suppose you will tell us by and by this is your Hand-writing that I think we have proved sufficiently this is found in the County of Middlesex and you come and tell us that we must Prove that it was Written in the County of Middlesex and it is taken to be Written where it was found unless you Prove the contrary Mr. Serj. Pemberton That 's pretty Doctrine indeed and very new Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord here 's an Objection made too timely we are now upon Reading of this Paper and the Question is Whether it shall be Read or not be Read. Surely we have given Evidence enough to induce the Court to Read it and it is another Question that will come time enough afterwards Where it was Writen L. C. I. Truly I do not think it
to my Lords the Bishops that no advantage should be taken of what they said and I say the King made no such promise Mr. Serj. Pemberton We did not ask you the question but we only told you what use we would have made of another question Mr. Pollixfen Mr. Blathwayt I see you can very well distinguish what questions are to be answered I ask you in short upon your Oath When they were first called in what was said to them and what was answered by them L. C. Iust. Here has been a great deal of wrangling but this is a fair question and may reduce us to order again tell us oâ—…er again from the beginning what passed when my Noble Lords the Bishops came in the first second and third time when they were examined about this Paper Mr. Blathwayt My Lord I shall comply with your Lordship's Directions I apprehend I am to answer together concerning the first second and third comings in of my Lords the Bishops into the Council The first time as I said before my Lords the Bishops were unwilling to own the Paper and did say they humbly hoped His Majesty would not take advantage against them but that they were ready to obey his Command The second time they were called in they did repeat it again that they hoped His Majesty would not take advantage against them after that there was mention made of the Paper being published I remember my Lords the Bishops said they had not published it Sir R. Sawyer Is that all Mr. Att. Gen. You have no mind to hear all I think L. C. Iust. How do you expect to be answered your questions if you interrupt them Go on Mr. Blathwayt Mr. Blathwayt Sir I said last that they having prayed the King that no advantage might be taken against them for what they should say there was mention made of the Paper its being published and my Lords the Bishops did say they had not published it and His Grace my Lord Archbishop said it was written with his own Hand and that he had not made use of his Clerk. Sir. R. Sawyer Is that all you can remember that passed at that time Mr. Blathwayt This is the substance of what I remember L. C. Iust. Was this the third time Mr. Blathwayt No that was the second time my Lord. Mr. Pollixfen If there be not some order in this Evidence my Lord we shall not be able to observe any thing upon it Pray what was done afterwards Mr. Blathwayt My Lord Chancellour upon their coming in did require them to answer whether they did own that Paper or not my Lords the Bishops did own the Paper Mr. Pollixfen Do you remember in what words or expressions as near as you can they did own it Mr. Soll. Gen. Is this a practice to be endured Mr. Finch Why he may apprehend and take that to be an owning of it which was not Mr. Soll. Gen. Has not he sworn the manner of it and almost the very words Mr. Serj. Levinz We desire nothing of him but that he will tell us what words they said when they owned it Mr. Blathwayt It was the third time that they came in that they owned it Mr. Serj. Pemberton Why what did they say Mr. Blathwayt My Lord Chancellour required them to answer whether they owned the Paper or no. Mr. Serj. Pemberton What did they say then Mr. Blathwayt As near as I can remember His Grace and my Lords the Bishops did own the Paper Mr. Serj. Pemberton What words did they own it in tell the manner of it Mr. Soll. Gen. What 's this to the purpose Mr. Finch Mr. Blathwayt Did you take notes of what passed there Mr. Blathwayt I answer Sir I did not take notes for I attended the King at his Elbow and did not take notes Mr. Finch you know the manner of the Council in such cases very well Mr. Att. Gen. Then we ask you for the King because they shall not enflame People by such an expression In what words did they own it if you can remember Mr. Blathwayt Sir I have declared my memory as well as I can when the other Clerks come to be examined if they can tell any more let them Mr. Soll. Gen. But we will have no Discourse to enflame the World Did the King promise or declare that no advantage should be taken of their confession L. Ch. Iust. I would ask him that question What was the manner that my Lord Chancellour exprest himself in to them when they came in the third time Mr. Blathwayt Assoon as my Lord Chancellour had required them to declare whether they owned that Paper as well as I remember His Grace took the Paper in his hand and it was handed over or shewed to my Lords the Holding it forth to the Court. Bishops and they owned and declared so just as if they should lay it before the Court just so I do not recollect my self of all the circumstances that passed I only can tell you the substance Mr. Soll. Gen. He does not remember what they said particularly Mr. Att. Gen. Mr. Sollicitour I know well enough what they mean by the question I know they would fain possess the World with a belief that there was such a promise made them and yet they are prosecuted notwithstanding that promise therefore I do ask you Mr. Blaithwayt and for the King's Honour I must ask it Did the King make any Promise or Declaration that no advantage should be taken or use made of it Mr. Blathwayt The King did not make any Promise or Declaration that no advantage should be taken or use made of it Mr. Soll. Gen. He only put them upon it whether they did own it or not Mr. Att. Gen. I ask you upon your Oath Did my Lord Archbishop own it to be his Head-writing Mr. Blathwayt Yes he did and said he writ it with his own Hand and would not let his Clerk write it Mr. Att. Gen. Did he own the whole to be his Hand-writing or not Mr. Blathwayt Yes he did Mr. Att. Gen. Did every one of the Bishops own their names subscribed to it Mr. Blathwayt Yes Mr. Soll. Gen. Then my Lord we pray now that it may be read L. C. Iust. I suppose now they will be content it should be read Mr. Finch If your Lordship please to favour me one word I think it cannot yet be read and my Objection is this L. C. Iust. I thought you had made all your Objections before as to the reading of it Mr. Finch Pray my Lord spare us Here are two parts of this Information the one is for consulting and conspiring to diminish the King's Royal Prerogative and for that end they did make and write a seditious Libell the other part is that they did publish this seditious Libell We are hitherto upon the first part the making and writing of it both parts are local untill they have proved the making and writing of it to have been in Middlesex it
is not Evidence upon this Information Mr. Soll. Gen. We have proved it written and published in Middlesex Mr. Serj. Pemb. The contrivance and writing of a Libell is in itself penal and they may be punished for it if they be found guilty Now if they could give an undeniable Evidence concerning the publishing of it that is nothing to this point but if they should not give such Evidence or any Evidence at all of the publication yet if it be proved that it was written and contrived by them they would be guilty for so much if it be a Libell and this we say is local as well as all the rest and therefore we insist upon it that the writing and contriving must as well be proved to be in Middlesex as the publication for all is local L. C. Iust. There is no publishing yet proved Mr. Serj. Levinz It is true my Lord here is nothing of a Publication yet with your Lordship's favour for their Answer to His Majesty in Council was that they did not publish it all that is said yet is that they owned the Paper to be their hands My Lord does the owning of that own that it was written in the County of Middlesex or that it was contrived or made there No surely upon this Evidence the place is clearly at large My Lord this might have been done in the County of Surrey or Somerset or any other County Their Information is that they did consult and contrive to diminish the King's Prerogative at Westminster in the County of Middlesex and there they did write and cause to be written this Libell and there they did publish it suppose it should be granted that it is proved that this is the Archbishop's Hand-writing and these are their Names to it is there any one Evidence that any thing of this was done in Middlesex and my Lord that is the thing they are to prove Mr. Sommers If your Lordship please all matters of Crime are so local that if it be not proved to be done in the County where it is laid the party accused is as innocent as if he never had done the thing and with submission it is the very point of the Information that it be proved they are guilty of the Fact in the place where it is laid to be done L. C. Iust. This is the same thing over and over again but I am content to hear you Mr. Sommers at any time I have told you my opinion about reading of the Paper already if you 'll have it again you may Mr. Pollixfen Pray good my Lord spare us before it be read Mr. Iust. Holloway Mr. Pollixfen you have not yet had the Directions of the Court for the reading of it Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord when this Paper is read which we pray it may be we will answer their Objections but at present we say they are out of time Mr. Pollixfen Good Lord what a â—…ange thing is this We object against the reading of it and you 'll answer us after it is read Mr. Soll. Gen. Certainly my Lord we have done enough to prove that this is a paper owned by them in the County of Middlesex and we pray it may be read L. Ch. Iust. Truly I am of the same mind I was before that it is too soon to make the Objection and that the Paper ought to be read Mr. Soll. Gen. We submit to your Rule Mr. Pollixfen If it be the Will of the Court I have nothing to say Mr. Iust. Powell My Lord The Contrivance and Publication are both matters of Fact and upon Issue joined the Jurors are Judges of the Fact as it is laid in the Information but how can they be Judges of a matter of Fact done in another County and it must be presumed in favour of Innocence not to be done in this County but in another except they prove it Mr. Att. Gen. We are not yet ripe for arguing that point Mr. Soll. Gen. We are speaking only to the Court now for the reading of this Paper and the Jury are not Judges of that whether the Paper ought to be read or no that is merely a matter of Law and under the direction of the Court and therefore I pray since it is now in your Lordship's Judgment whether that Paper should be read that you would please to order it to be read L. C. Iust. I can only give you my own opinion let my Brothers give theirs Mr. Iust. Holloway There is no body against the reading of it my Lord I suppose my Brother Powell is not against its being read Mr. Iust. Powell But they say the King's Counsel must make it out first that the writing of it and the conspiring about it was in the County of Midds or there can be no judgment so much as to read it Mr. Pollixfen My Lord If the Objection be saved to us we shall not so much oppose the reading it only we would not be surprized in point of time Mr. Iust. Powell Nay if they consent to the reading we have no reason to hinder it L. C. Iust. Brother I believe they know well enough what they have to say for their Clients let the Paper be read Clerk reads The Humble Petition of William Archbishop of Canterbury Sir. R. Sawyer Read the whole Petition Pray my Lord that the whole may read Read the Top first Sir to whom it was directed L. C. Iust. Read the whole Clerk reads To the King 's Most Excellent Majesty The Humble Petition of William Archbishop of Canterbury and of divers of the Suffragan Bishops of that Province now present with him in behalf of themselves and others of their absent Brethren and of the Clergy of their respective Dioceses Humbly sheweth THat the great aversness they find in themselves to the distributing and publishing in all their Churches your Majesties late Declaration for Liberty of Conscience proceedeth neither from any want of Duty and Obedience to your Majesty our holy Mother the Church of England being both in her Principles and in her constant practice unquestionably loyal and having to her great Honour been more than once publickly acknowledged to be so by your Gratious Majesty nor yet from any want of due tenderness to Dissenters in relation to whom they are willing to come to such a Temper as shall be thought fit when that matter shall be considered and settled in Parliament and Convocation but amongst many other considerations from this especially because that Declaration is founded upon such a Dispencing Power as hath been often declared illegal in Parliament and particularly in the Years 1662 and 1672 and in the beginning of your Majesties Reign and is a matter of so great moment and consequence to the whole Nation both in Church and State that your Petitioners cannot in Prudence Honour or Conscience so far make themselves parties to it as the Distribution of it all over the Nation and the solemn Publication of it once and again even in
God's House and in the time of his Divine Service must amount to in common and reasonable Construction Your Petitioners therefore most humbly and earnestly beseech your Majesty that You will be gratiously pleased not to insist upon their Distributing and Reading your Majesties said Declaration And Your Petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray c. Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord we shall leave our Evidence here and hear what they can object to it Mr. Finch Have you no farther Evidence Mr. Attorney Mr. Att. Gen. We leave it here for the present Mr. Sol. Gen. The Gentlemen of the Jury desire to see the Petition L. Ch. Iust. Shew it them The Petition was shewn to the Iury. Mr. Finch But will you give no farther Evidence Mr. Attorney Mr. Att. Gen. I tell you we 'll leave it here till we see what you say to it Mr. Finch There is nothing that we should say any thing to Mr. Att. Gen. Make your Advantage of it if it be nothing we can have nothing L. C. Iust. What say you for the Defendents Gentlemen Mr. Finch My Lord in short we say that hitherto they have totally failed for they have not proved any Fact done by us in Middlesex nor have they proved any Publication at all Sir Robert Sawyer They have given no Evidence of any thing L. C. Iust. Pray Gentlemen speak One at once and then we shall understand the better what we hear Sir R. Sawyer My Lord We say they have given no Evidence of the Conspiring Writing or Pulibshing in Middlesex Nay as to the Publication there is none at all proved Mr. Finch Here is no proof of any Publication nor of the writing or making in Middlesex so that there is no proof at all against my Lords the Bishops L. C. Iust. You heard what Mr. Blathwayt said they owned it in Middlesex Mr. Finch That is not a Publication sure or any Evidence where it was done Mr. Serj. Levinz Suppose my Lord that I own in Middlesex that I robb'd a man in Yorkshire will that make me guilty in Middlesex Mr. Sol. Gen. But if you had stole a Horse in Yorkshire and had that Horse in Middlesex and owned it I doubt it would go hard with you in Middlesex Mr. Sol. Gen. Mr. Serjeant thinks he has put a very home Comparison but we shall shew how little significant it is by and by Mr. Serj. Levinz My Lord in the first place we insist upon it here is no proof in this Case at all as to the doing of any Fact at all in the County of Middlesex In the next place this Information and Petition do not agree for they have brought an Information and set forth That my Lords the Bishops under pretence of a Petition did make a Libel and they have set forth no Petition at all all the Petitionary part is omitted If I will take part of a man's words and not the whole and make a Libel of that part certainly that is very disingenuous and injurious For that part that I omit may alter the Sense of the whole They here ought to set forth the Petition with the Direction to the King and the Prayer at the end whereby it will appear what the whole is and what was desired by their Petition But my Lord to make this matter a little more clear whatsoever they say of its being my Lord Archbishop's Hand we shall prove that if it were so it could not be done in Middlesex for we shall prove that my Lord of Canterbury had not been in Middlesex for three or four Months before Sir Robere Sawyer Pray let the Information be read then you will the see variance Mr. Att. Gen. There is not the latter part we acknowledge in the Information Mr. Sol. Gen. There may be and is a sic Continetur and there is no Objection in that at all L. C. Iust. It is sic Continetur and that 's Sir Rob. Sawyer The truth of it is this Information has made a very deformed thing of it has left it neither Head nor Tail they style it a Petition but it is without any Direction to any body and without any Prayer for any thing and without those two it cannot be told what it is Mr. Iust. Allybone Sir Rob. Sawyer if I mistake not it is said only under pretence of a Petition Sir Rob. Sawyer There may be more in the Paper than in the Information and if all were in one part might explain another Mr. Sol. Gen. So there may be more and I wonder to hear that Objection from Sir Robert Sawyer who has exhibited so many Informations for Libells in piâ—…es taken out of Books Mr. Recorder All that we alledge in the Information is contained in the Paper and that 's enough for our purpose we are not bound to recite the whole L. Ch. Iust. Indeed I think it is no material Objection at all Mr. Serj. Pemberton Truly I think it is very material in this Case here 's a Petition that is preferred to his Majesty take the whole Petition together and say they it is a reasonable Petition chop off the Direction and the Prayer and then here 's nothing but the body of a Petition without beginning or ending or if a man will say any thing concerning the King and doe it by way of Petition to himself that will alter the Case mightily from a Paper spread about that should contain only the body of a Petition and nothing else Sir Rob. Sawyer Pray read that part of the Information Mr. Pollixfen If so be there be an Information and that Information charges a man with a pretended Petition and the Evidence comes and proves a Petition both top and bottom that is not the Petition in the Information for that lacking the proper parts of a Petition is called a pretended Petition but that which is proved is a real one Serj. Baldock My Lord there is nothing in this Objection as this Record hath it Mr. Att. Gen. Pray my Lord give us leave to state it on our side as they have done on theirs and it will be the better understood upon the reading I hope it is not come to that pass that they would have it sure these Gentlemen have not forgot altogether the practice that has been so frequent in this Court if there be an Information for a Libell Is there any thing more frequent than only to recite the material part Sure they may say in such a Libell is contained so and so without setting forth the whole Book Mr. Sol. Gen. How many Tryalls have we had here wherein there has been only a Clause taken out of a Book as particularly Baxter's Bible and Iohnson's Book and all by virtue of a sic continetur Mr. Finch That comes not up to our Objection here Mr. Iust. Powell Let us hear the Record read and then we can judge of it Sir Rob. Sawyer We pray Sir the Information may be read Mr. Att. Gen. We are here
upon all Occasions chopp'd in upon and I do not know how they come to take this Liberty I am sure other people had it not in former times when these Gentlemen stood where we do as soon as ever we offer to speak presently there are two or three upon us L. Ch. Iust. Let me hear them Mr. Attorney make their Objection and let the Record be read and that will answer that Objection Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord as for that other thing they come and tell us we have set forth a Petition we say no such thing in the Information we say you composed a certain Libell pretensâ—… Petitionis in which are contained such and such things and now I pray let it be read Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray my Lord hear me a little first Take the Information as we have laid it and I believe there are twenty Presidents that I could give you in an instant of late days practice so was the Information against Mr. Baxter so was the Information against Mr. Iohnson so was the Information against Doctor Eades and so was the Information against Sir Samuel Barnardiston They are all in this form sic continetur so that as for that matter we are well enough But here 's another thing say they You do not set out the Petition we say it is a Libell and it is not the Name we rely on but there is such a Libell so we in our Information call it if it be not a Libell then are they very innocent and whether it be or no is now in Judgment before your Lordship but if it be as we say then it is not the speaking ill things in the body of a Petition and then giving it a good Title and in concluding it with a good Prayer at the end of it 't is not I say any of these that will sweeten this Crime nor alter nor alleviate it at all if there be that which is Seditious and Libellous in the Body of it call the Paper what you will and smooth it with a Preamble or a Conclusion that will not make it any thing less a Libell these things are plain and manifest We say there is such a thing done a Libell made pretensâ—… Petitionis do you call it what you will but we say these and these things are a Libell upon the King and the Government We have proved our Case we have proved there was such a Paper under their Hands we have proved it was owned in Middlesex and then we are in your Judgment whether this be not Evidence sufficient to convict the Defendents L. Ch. Iust. But they do make an Objection about the Writing and Contriving of it that it is not proved to be in Middlesex Mr. Serj. Trinder My Lord our Information does not go with a continued Clause that they framed a Libell ut sequitur in haec verba but we only say they made a Libell pretensu Petitionis and then we say In quo quidem Libello continetur so and so we do not tie our selves up to a particular Recital of all that 's in the Paper L. Ch. Iust. Read the Record Clerk Reads Ipsi iidem Willielmus Archiepiscopus Cantuariensis and the rest dicta decimo octavo die Maii Anno Regni dicti Domini Regis nunc quarto supradicto vi armis c. apud Westmonasterium praedictum in Comitatu Middlesexiae praedicto ilioite malitiose seditiose scandalose quoddam falsum fictum pernitiosum seditiosum Libellum in scriptis de eodem Domino Rege Regall Declaratione Ordine predictis pretensu Petitionis fabricaverunt composuerunt scripserunt fabricari componi scribi causaverunt eundem fâ—…lfum fictum malitiosum pernitiosum seditiosum Libellum per ipsos praedictos Willielmum Archiepiscopum Cantuariensem and the rest manibus suis propriis respective subscriptum die anno loco ultimo mentionatis in proesentia dicti Domini Regis nunc vi armis c. publicaverunt publicari causaverunt In quo quidem falso ficto malitioso pernitioso seditioso Libello continetur The humble Petition of c. Mr. Serj. Levinz It is quite another thing that which is produced from that which is in the Information by this leaving out a part for here is the Prayer omitted and the Direction Mr. Sol. Gen. Then my Lord I think there is nothing in the Case but this mighty Objection of the County and says Mr. Serj. Levinz if my Country-man Confesses in this County that he stole a Horse in Yorkshire you shall not try him in London but in Yorkshire because by his own Confession the Fact is in another County Mr. Serj. Levinz I did not put the Case so Mr. Sol. Gen. But take the Fact of the Case as it is here my Lord the Bishops come in Middlesex and own this Paper my Lord Archbishop owns it to be his Writing and the rest of the Bishops own their Hands if they had done as Mr. Serjeant's Yorkshire-man did and said we own we did this but it was in the County of York then it would have been like the Case that these Gentlemen put but here we are in a plain Case of another nature my Lord Archbishop comes here in Middlesex and owns that he writ the Paper the other Bishops they signed it now it does lie certainly in their knowledge where this was done and they should have declared then but they have owned it as their Paper and the signing and writing of it which is enough for us Mr. Finch I own this to be my Paper therefore I writ it in the County of Middlesex Is that a Consequence I am very glad they are no better at their Inferences Mr. Sol. Gen. They have owned the thing in Middlesex that we insist upon and they have not owned it with any qualification if they had said it was done in another County then you must have taken it to be as they said it then if they do not distinguish the place of the Fact your Lordship can only take it to be where they owned it it would be supposed to be done in that place for when they owned the Fact it will be supposed if they do not say where it was done that it was done where they owned it because the King cannot tell where it was done but the Evidence comes out of their own mouths they may give satisfaction where it was done for they know it and till that be done the Supposition is against them that it was done in the place where they owned it and that is a plain Case wheresoever a man is to speak of his own Fact. Indeed if I publish the Writing of another person which is Libellous then there must be a particular proof of the place because it is flot my own Fact but if those Lords publish a Libell that they make themselves it is in their own knowledge and in their own power to tell where it was done because it is their
place where it was done Mr. Sollicitor General Here is a great deal of Prevarication in this matter and I would observe to your Lordship how they do use the Court ill in it pray my Lord What is it we are upon we are proving that these seven Lords the Bishops signed this Paper and I think we have proved it sufficiently out of their own Mouths But say they it was not signed in the County of Middlesex but in the County of Surrey All this is but Imagination and they would have the Court to imagine it too For how do they prove it They would have your Lordship and the Jury believe That it was signed elsewhere because my Lord Archbishop has not been out of his House in some Months before it is all but Inference and Argument and Imagination But still Gentlemen do you answer what I objected to you Does it not lie in their Power to shew where it was signed Here are six more besides the Archbishop where was it signed by them Here are six of the Bishops that it does not appear where they signed it but they confess at White-Hall in Middlesex that they did set their Hands Mr. Serjeant Levinz Ay they did so and what then Mr. Solicitor General Ay and ay too if they did so the Presumption and Common Intendment upon such Evidence is That is was done in the Place where it was owned and the rather for that Reason that I said before That it lies in their Knowledge and therefore it is incumbent upon them to prove That it was not in the County of Middlesex So that this Objection I take rather to be an Invention of the Counsel than the Truth of the Fact because they that can make this out do not And as to what they say of my Lord Archbishop That he has not been out of Doors for so long who can prove such a thing Certainly my Lord was able to come for any thing that appears he has been here twice and he was able to come to the Council-Board But when all is done my Lord Archbishop is certainly able to put this matter out of doubt for he may easily prove it if the Fact be so and that will satisfie the Court and every Body That it was signed by him at Lambeth if he designs to deal sincerely with your Lordship and the Court and the Jury but certainly it is not to be proved by a Circumstance such a one as this is but he ought to give your Lordship and the Jury Satisfaction about this Fact He ought to say 'T is true I did sign it but it was at Lambeth-House that indeed would be a down-right Stroke to us But to go upon a Supposition That because my Lord Archbishop was not out of his House for so long together therefore they are all not Guilty is a very hard and foreign Inference My Lord there 's another Matter that they insist upon and that is about the Publication that is as plain as any thing can be that here is a full Proof of a Publication for if the Paper be Libellous where-ever that Paper is that is a Publishing where-ever the Paper travels how far soever it goes it is a Publication of it by these Persons that signed it I believe no body thinks that this should fly into the King's hand but some body brought it to him and certainly my Lord if your Opinion should be that this Paper is Libellous then where ever it is it is a Publishing which is our offence where-ever it is found it is a Publâ—…tion for there is the mistake of these Gentlemen they fancy that unless there was a Publick Delivery of this Paper abroad nothing can be a Publication but I rely upon it they setting their Names to it made it their Paper and where-ever it was afterwards found that did follow the Paper where-ever it went and was a Publication of it it was in their Power being their own Contrivance it was made and formed by themselves and no body will believe when it was their own Hands that they put to it that any body else could have any power over it for ought appears no body else was at work about it and when there were so many Learned Prelates that had signed such a Paper no one can believe they would let it go out of their Hands but by their Consent and Direction Is not this a Proof of the Publishing Do they give your Lordships any Evidence that they had stifled this Paper If they had so done they had said something but will any body believe that this thing was done in vain Can any body assign a Reason why so solemn a thing as this should be done to no end and purpose Why a Paper should be framed that rails at the Kings two Declarations Why a Paper that gives Reasons why they could not read it in their Churches and signed with such Solemnity by all these Noble Lords we submit this to you in point of Law and the Law is plain in it that if this Paper be Libellous and it is found in the County of Middlesex there is a Publication of that Libel I shall mention to your Lordship that Case of Williams which is reported in the Second Part of Roll's Reports Mr. Finch made use of it in the Case of Sidney it was the great Case relied upon and that guided and governed that Case as I apprehend from the Verdict and Judgment that was given in it This Case was 15 Iacobi It seems Williams was a Barrister of the Inner-Temple and it seems being an high Catholick for Opinion and Judgment he was expelled the House and he being so expelled being a sort of a Vertuoso wâ—…ote a Book called Baalam's Ass and therein he makes use of the Prophecy of the Prophet Daniel and he makes Application of it according to his own particular fancy He writes there That this World was near at an end and he said Those ill days were come that that Prophecy had spoken of and because of the Impurity of Prince and Priest and People and other things that happened those were the worst of days and therefore the last and that certainly we had the worst Prince that ever was in the World when he wrote this Book what does he do He was a little more close than my Lords the Bishops and pins it up or seals it up and it was brought to the King and what is this more than the Case before your Lordship They indeed say I do this by way of Advice to the King so said he I do this by way of Advice to the King for God forbid that any of this should happen to the King and so what he does was by way of Advice and he prayed God to avert it from him here was as good a Prayer as there is in this Paper and there was a good design he made use of the Prophet Daniel and applied his words Well what was done upon it This was
never published for the Question was before the Court whether this Sealing of it up and not delivering it to any other body were a Publication the Court was of Opinion that the very Writing of it was a Publication they did not value the delivery of it to the Prince but it was proved he Writ it and that made it Treason My Lord we have Cases enough in my Lord Hobart for this Matter Sir Baptist Hick's Case and my Lady Hattâ—…n's Case there was only a Letter sealed up and delivered to the Party L. C. I. You need not trouble your self about that Mr. Solicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. If the Case then be thus I take it it will turn upon this Fact they have given your Lordship no Proof where this Paper was Signed by them here are seven Persons that had a hand in it and here is only one Person whom they have insisted to be infirm and kept his House for a great while together We say the Publishing follows the Libel where-ever it goes the Libel is in the County of Middlesex they have confessed it in the County of Middlesex and they did not distinguish where it was done Then if they will not distinguish upon the Evidence no Man ought to distinguish but ought to presume it was done in that place where they owned it Mr. Attor Gen. I did not apprehend we were got so far that they Opposed us in the Publication Sir Rob. Sawyer Yes we did for you have given no Evidence of it Mr. Attor Gen. Surely my Lord for that we have give a sufficient Evidence and they have given some Proof of it as to my Lord Archbishop that because he had not been from Lambeth therefore he did not publish nor could cause it to be published for your Lordship sees by this Information they are not only to answer the Publicavit but also the Publicari causavit for do you doubt Gentlemen of the Law in this Case that if I compose a Libel in Surrey for Example and send a Person over into Middlesex I am not Guilty of the Publishing Sir Rob. Sawyer That is not your Case Mr. Attorney Mr. Finch That were clear if it were so but it is not so Mr. Attor Gen. My Lord Archbishop's Case signifies nothing if we shew it was published in Middlesex and you give no Evidence to the contrary but it might be there and I am sure as to the rest of my Lords the Bishops there is no Evidence at all given Here is a Petition that we say is a Libel they it may be will make that a Question this is delivered to the King 's own Hand in the County of Middlesex and there are as many Cases as any one Man can name that this amounts to a Publication by the Party for if I send a Letter by the Post sealed that no body can see but the Party himself and he that writ it it is adjudged over and over again it is a Libel Mr. Justice Powel That you need not labour Mr. Attorney for that 's the Case of Williams of Essex but how do you apply it to the Case now before us Mr. Attor Gen. That 's an Answer to their Objection as to the Publication Mr. Justice Powel But what say you to the first part you have not proved that it was written in Middlesex Mr. Attor Gen. There is the Case of Barrow and Lewellin in Hobart and likewise the Case of Sir Baptist Hicks which is reported both in Hobart and in Popham and in Popham towards the end of the Case there is a remarkable Passage Says that Case If it should not be punishable at the Suit of the King there would be no Remedy for the Party cannot bring an Action because he can be no Witness for himself and it is only known betwixt them two but a Witness for the King he may be to prove his own Receipt of the Letter and the Party's Hand Mr. Justice Powel You need not labour that Point I 'll tell you Mr. Attorney for the Law is very clear in that Point I think if you bring it home to your Case Mr. Attor Gen. Then here 's the Case in short my Lord That my Lords the Bishops have caused to be made and written this Petition they are made Parties to it by setting their Names and this is a continued Act whatsoever is written there is my Lord Archbishop's Writing where-ever it goes as I 'll put you a Case that 's very well known If I take away Goods from a Man in the County of Cumberland and I am found with them in the County of Middlesex it is a continued Act and makes all but one Felony and I shall be Tried here in Middlesex for it If a Man write a thing in one County and it is sent and dispersed in another County that still continues to be his Fact though it may be the first part was not in the same County with the other but suppose all this while that part should not affect my Lord of Canterbury the causing it to be Published does Mr. Justice Powel Do you think Mr. Attorney that writing in one County is such a continued Act that he may be said to write it in another County Mr. Attor Gen. Sir I take it where there is a complicated Crime of Writing and Publishing a Libel and the beginning of it is in one County and the carrying it on is in another that is a continued Act and may be Tried in either County L. C. I. It is all one Act of Libelling as they say Mr. Iust. Holloway In Cases of Felony 't is so taking in one County and being found with the Goods in another it is Felony in either County Mr. Iust. Powel But in that Case they are two Felonies for it is Robbery in the one County and but bare Felony in the other Mr. Sol. Gen. Suppose that my Lords the Bishops Signed this Paper in another County and my Lord Archbishop consents to have it sent into Middlesex is not this a causing it to be published in another County Mr. Iust. Powel Yes it may be if you prove his Consent Mr. Sol. Gen. Then suppose further which may very well consiâ—…t with my Lord Archbishop's Evidence of his not being out of Lambeth in so long time the rest of the Bishops might sign it in Middlesex or it may be in that Place and then they carry it by my Lords consent over hither into this County is not this a causing it to be published the Delivery with his Consent certainly is a Proof of that for our Information goes two ways For Making Contriving Writing and Publishing that 's one And then For causing it to be Made Contrived and Published that 's the other And if I prove that he caused it to be published he may be found Guilty as to that part and not Guilty as to the other for the Information is not so intire but that the King has his choice if the Archbishop had
not signed it or written it but had caused it to be published he may be found guilty of so much But if he be Guilty of any one of these things it is enough and if he be Guilty of none of the other things laid in the Information yet if he be Guilty of causing it to be published by his consenting that the rest of the Bishops should do it that will be enough to maintain this Information Then my Lord is there any Evidence brought against what we have proved That he did not consent Mr. Just. Powel But where was this Consent of his given Mr. Solicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray good Sir give me your Favour I think I am in a plain Case Mr. Serj. Pemberton So you are truly Mr. Sol. Gen. Why good Sir you ought to make out the Locality if you 'l take advantage of it Mr. Serj. Pemberton That 's very well indeed this is the first time I ever heard that Doctrine Mr. Sol. Gen. I cannot help that but certainly the Law is plain we have proved there was such a Fact as this done and they do not go about to prove that it was done elswhere than where we have laid it for if they did their Witnesses would be cross-examined by us and then we know what would become of them then the Truth of the matter would come out Therefore I would make all this constare The Archbishop might be at Lambeth and yet Guilty in Middlesex by his Concurrence with what was done in Middlesex And I say my Lord this is natural upon the Evidence that has been given because when they were interrogated at the Council and confessed the Paper to be theirs they made no such Explanation of their Confession of which they can make any Advantage in their Defence Here has been no Body produced that proves any thing to be done out of Middlesex so that still if he 's Guilty of the Fact proved he must be Guilty in Middlesex Serjeant Baldock And it does not appear in this Case but that my Lord Archbishop might write the same thing in Middlesex tho' he was at Lambeth so long as the Witness speaks of Mr. Just. Powel How do you make out that Brother Serj. Baldock He might do it when he câ—…me over to the Council Sir Rob. Sawyer He must do it after it was presented Serj. Baldock Might he not be so long here on this side the Water as to make such a short thing as this before it was delivered half a quarter of an Hour would have done it L. Ch. Iust. That 's a thing not to be presumed Brother especially since he is proved not to have been in Middlesex for so long together Sir Rob. Sawyer Mr. Serjeant is mightily mistaken for it is not pretended That it was delivered at the time when the Archbishop and my Lords the Bishops were before the Council Mr. Recorder Either the Making and Contriving or the Publishing of this Libel will do upon this Information for they shall be taken to be one continued complicated Act and then the Party may be tryed in either of the Counties as the King will as in the case of Treason it has been over and over again adjudged That if a Man does one Act of Treason in one County and afterwards goes into another County and does another Act of Treason the Jury of either of the Counties may enquire of the Fact done in the other If they then should take those two as several Acts they were several Offences and they may be found Guilty of the one and acquitted of the other but if they are taken as one continued Act they are but one Offence and the Jury of either County may try it If then in this Case the Jury of this County may take notice of the Publication which was here as certainly they may if they will agree as the Law certainly is That the Writing of a Letter will be a sufficient Publication if the matter be Libellous And there are multitudes of Precedents for that and that the bare setting of a Man's Hand has been adjudged to be a Publication Then give me leave my Lord to bring it to a similar Case Suppose a Man write a scandalous Letter from London to a Judge or Magistrate in Exeter and sends it by the Post and the Letter is received from the Post at Exeter and there opened would any Man make a Question whether the Gentleman that sent the Letter may not be indicted and prosecuted for a Libel at Exeter where the Libel was received Mr. Just. Powel There 's no question of that Mr. Recorder that comes not home to the Fact in our Case undoubtedly in the Case that you put the Law is as you said but it is far different from this Case L. Ch. Iust. There 's no Body opposes the Publication but the framing of it where it was made Mr. Recorder Supposing then the Party were at Exeter and he were interrogated before the Magistrate Whether that were his Hand or no and he should own it to be his Hand can any body doubt whether his owning that to be his Hand would be a sufficient Evidence to prove a Publication Mr. Just. Powel But is that any Evidence where it was written Or if it be not proved that it was received at Exeter would that be a Proof of a Publication at Exeter L. Ch. Iust. They do not deny the Publication Sir Rob. Sawyer We do deny that there was any Publication and they have proved no place where it was made Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord we are not for turning my Lords the Bishops out of the way of Proof that is usual in such Cases let them take it if they will That this was contrived and made in Surrey But can they publish it in Middlesex without committing an Offence and that is it we stand upon We are not for laying a greater Load upon my Lords the Bishops than our Proof will answer Sir Rob. Sawyer We thank you for your Complement Mr. Solicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. Is this a fare way of interrupting us when we are speaking Durst any one have served you so when you were in the Kings Service We would make our Duty as easie as we can to my Lords the Bishops and it may be easier than other Men would have made it But my Lord let it be a doubtful case that we cannot tell which County it was made and contrived in if it were made and contrived in another County yet when they brought it into Middlesex there was a Publication in Middlesex and if my Lord of Canterbury consented to it and if he caused it to be published how can any Body ever get him off from that causing of it to be published Here is a Paper that must be supposed to be my Lord Archbishops Paper Now either the World must look upon it to be an Imposture put upon my Lords the Bishops or a real Paper made by them If it were an Imposture
have been in Surrey or otherwise they must hold that the Answer to the King's Question this is my Hand is a Publication But truly my Lord I think neither of these will do But my Lord to me this is a great Evidence in it self against the Proof of a Publication the Care and Wariness that has been used that there should be nothing at all of this Matter known from the time that it was written to the time that they came to be examined and summoned to appear as Offenders My Lord the Nature of Libels is to publish and proclaim Scandal and Defamation or else it loses its End and consequently its Name This as it stands upon their Evidence is a monstrous Proof for my Lords the Bishops against the King's Council for it seems 't is a very private Matter so cautiously and warily carried that there is not any Evidence of the Fact but only the Names of the persons that writ it till they come to be examined by the greatest Authority Is this your Hand and then they own it so to be how can this be taken to be a Publication and it will be a thing of wonderful Consequence if an Answer to a Question put by Authority should amount to a Crime as it would in this Case that would be as if Authority that should be employed to do Right would be turned to do the greatest Wrong for it is the Duty of all men to answer when examined by a lawful Authority and it would never be offered at sure in any other Case If a Man comes before a Magistrate and confesses any thing that indeed is Evidence but is not a Crime for there is a great deal of difference between Evidence and the Crime but that this should be both an Evidence and a Crime too is I think a very strange Construction and for the other part the writing of it I suppose the Court is satisfied that it was in another County Sir Geo. Treby I desire your Lordship to spare me a Word which I think has not been observed by the Council that have spoke before The Question that remains is Whether my Lords the Bishops did Publish this Paper This is a matter of Fact that lies upon the Prosecutors to prove Now I think they are so far from having proved that the Bishops did publish it that on the contrary they have proved that their Lordships did not Publish it The Evidence they have offered for this matter is a Confession This Confession is testified by Mr. Blathwayt and he says the Bishops were ask'd at the Council whether they did subscribe and publish this paper and that their answer was that they did subscribe but not publish it Now a Confession must be taken together and must be admitted to be intirely true by them that produce it they shall never be allowed to take out and use one piece and wave the rest Why then by this Evidence of Confession taken as it ought it appears that the Bishops though they did subscribe did not publish the paper So that I say the King's Counsel have hereby plainly proved that the Bishops did not publish this paper and yet this is the onely Evidence upon which they would infer that they did publish it Mr. Att. Gen. Look you it does lie upon you Gentlemen to prove it was done elsewhere than in Middlesex Mr. Finch Sure Mr. Attorney is in jest Mr. Att. Gen. No I am in good earnest all the proof that we have given has been in Middlesex and you can best tell whether you did it in Middlesex or no. Mr. Finch My Lord we have done as to this Objection for we say they have not proved their Case L. Ch. Iust. Mr. Finch you may observe and I am sure you do observe as well as any body in all Cases but I say you may observe that they are off of every thing but causing it to be published now that does lie upon the King's Counsel to prove that my Lords the Bishops did cause it to be published for their owning of their hands does not amount to a Publication Mr. S. Pemberton My Lord We are upon this point with them whether here be any Evidence of a Publication at all Mr. Iust. Powell Pray let us clear this first for if there be no publication there can be no causing of it to be published Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord if you think fit we shall go on and reserve this point till afterwards Mr. Sol. Gen. They may make Objections if they think fit L 〈◊〉 Iust. So they may and they say if these Objections are with us we need go no farther Mr. S. Pemberton But my Lord if they be not with us we have a reserve to give a farther Answer to it and to offer Evidence against the Evidence they have offered Mr. Sol. Gen. With all our hearts give in Evidence what you can Mr. Att. Gen. Then pray my Lord let us go on to answer this Objection L. Ch. Iust. Pray do Mr. Attorney Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury I would first observe how far we have gone That there was such a paper written is clear beyond all question and written by my Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and that it was signed by the rest of the Bishops but not in the County of Middlesex and that this paper was published is agreed on all hands Mr. Iust. Holloway No they do not agree that Mr. Att. Gen. Do I say it was published by them but there was such a paper published Mr. S. Pemberton No we say it was never published at all L. Ch. Iust. Pray Brother Pemberton be quiet if Mr. Attorney in opening does say any thing that he ought not to say I will correct him as I would do any body that does not open things right as they are proved but pray don 't you that are at the Bar interrupt one another it is unbecoming men of your Profession to be chopping in and snapping at one another Go on Mr. Attorney Mr. Att. Gen. I say that the Paper is proved to be written and signed by my Lords the Bishops that I take for granted and that the Paper so signed and written is now published to the world is also evident but the question is who it was done by or who caused it to be done we are reduced to that question Now first it is agreed on all hands that if I send a Letter to a private Man containing Scandalous things in it though there is no proof more but that it was sent sealed and received by the party in that Case it was a fault punishable in the Star-Chamber as a Crime but now that this was received by the King and written by them there is no room for doubt for you hear it was produced by the King at the Council-Board and they asked upon it if it were their hands that the King did receive it there is no room for question or that they did write it but
Religion that was intended to be prohibited and so much Care was taken and so many Statutes made to prohibit it will come in and all this Care and all those Statutes go for nothing This one Declaration sets them all out of doors and then that Religion stands upon equal Terms with the established Religion My Lord We say this farther that my Lords the Bishops have the Care of the Church by their very Function and Offices and are bound to take care to keep out all those false Religions that are prohibited and designed to be kept out by the Law. My Lords the Bishops finding this Declaration founded upon a meer pretended Power that had been continually opposed and rejected in Parliament could not comply with the King's Command to read it My Lord Such a Power to dispense with or suspend the Laws of a Nation cannot with any shadow of Reason be It is not long since that such a Power was ever pretended to by any but such as have the Legislative too for it is plain that such a Power must at least be equal to the Power that made the Laws To dispense with a Law must argue a Power greater or at least as great as that which made the Law. My Lord It has been often said in our Books That where the King's Subjects are concerned in Interest the King cannot suspend or dispense with a particular Law. But my Lord how can the King's Subjects be more concern'd in Interest than when their Religion lies at stake It has been resolved upon the Statute of Symony that where the Statute has disabled the Party to take there the King could not enable him against that Act of Parliament And shall it be said that by his Dispensation he shall enable one to hold an Office who is disabled by the Test-Act My Lord We say The Course of our Law allows no such Dispensation as this Declaration pretends to And he that is but meanly read in our Law must needs understand this That the Kings of England cannot suspend our Laws for that would be to set aside the Law of the Kingdom And then we might be clearly without any Laws if the King should please to suspend them 'T is true we say the last King Charles was prevailed upon by Mis-information to make a Dispensation somewhat of the nature of this though not so full an one for that dispensed only with some few Ceremonies and things of that nature But the House of Commons this taking Air in 1662. represent this to the King by a Petition And what is it that they do represent That he by his Dispensation has undertaken to do that which nothing but an Act of Parliament can do that is the dispensing with Penal Laws which is only to be done by Act of Parliament And thereupon it was thought fit upon the King's Account to bring in an Act for it in some Cases My Lord The King did then in his Speech to the Parliament which we use as a great Argument against this Dispensing Power say this That considering the Circumstances of the Nation he could wish with all his Heart that he had such a Power to dispense with some Laws in some Particulars And thereupon there was a Bill in order to an Act of Parliament brought in giving the King a Power to dispense but my Lord with a great many Qualifications Which shews plainly that it was taken by the Parliament that he had no Power to dispense with the Laws of himself My Lord Afterwards in 1672. the King was prevailed upon again to grant another Dispensation somewhat larger L. C. I. Brother Pemberton I would not interrupt you but we have heard of this over and over again already Mr. S. Pemberton Then since your Lordship is satisfied of these things as I presume you are else I should have gone on I have done my Lord. Mr. S. Levinz But my Lord we shall go a little higher than that and shew that it has been taken all along as the ancient Law of England that such Dispensations ought to be by the King and the Parliament and not by the King alone Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord if you will admit every one of the Council to Speech it before they give their Evidence when shall we come to an End of this Cause We shall be here till Midnight L. C. I. They have no Mind to have an End of the Cause for they have kept it three Hours longer than they need to have done Mr. S. Pemberton My Lord This Case does require a great deal of Patience L. C. I. It does so Brother and the Court has had a greas deal of Patience But we must not sit here only to hear Speeches Mr. Att. Gen. Now after all their Speeches of two Hours long let them read any thing if they have it Sir Rob. Sawyer We will begin with the Record of Richard the Second Call William Fisher. William Fisher Clerk to Mr. Ince sworn L. C. I. What do you ask him Sir Rob. Sawyer Shew him that Copy of the Record The Record was then shewn him L. C. I. Where had you those Sir Mr. Fisher. Among the Records in the Tower. L. C. I. Are they true Copies Mr. Fisher. Yes my Lord. L. C. I. Did you examine them by the Record Mr. Fisher. Yes my Lord. Sir Rob. Sawyer Then hand them in put them in Clerk reads Ex Rotulo Parliamenti de Anno Regni Regis Richardi Secundi XV. No 1. My Lord It is written in French and I shall make but a bad Reading of it Sir Sam. Astrey Where is the Man that examin'd it Do you understand French Mr. Fisher. Yes my Lord. Sir Rob. Sawyer The Record is in another Hand than this they may easily read it Mr. Soll. Gen. Who copy'd this Paper Mr. Fisher. I did examine it Mr. Soll. Gen. What did you examine it with Mr. Fisher. I look'd upon that Copy and Mr. Halstead read the Record L. C. I. Young Man read out Fisher reads Vendredy Lande maine del Almes qu'estoit le primier jour Mr. Soll. Gen. Pray tell us what it is you would have read Mr. S. Levinz I 'll tell you what it is Mr. Sollicitor 'T is the Dispensation with the Statute of Provisors And the Act of Parliament does give the King a Power to dispense till such a time Mr. Soll. Gen. Don't you think the King's Prerogative is affirmed by many Acts of Parliament Mr. S. Levinz If the King could dispense without an Act of Parliament what need was there for the making of it Mr. Soll. Gen. Mr. Serjeant We are not to argue with you about that yet L. C. I. Read it in English for the Jury to understand it Mr. Fisher. My Lord I cannot undertake to read it so readily in English. Mr. I. Powel Why don't you produce the Records that are mentioned in the Petition those in King Charles the Second's time Mr. S. Levinz We will produce our Records in Order of Time as they
and a Man must not be his own Judg nor his own Carver nor must every Man create Difficulties of his own nor set upon Petitioning in this sort But there I lay my Foundation That in such a matter as this there ought to have been the Impeachment of the Commons in Parliament before these Lords could do any thing and I know nothing can be said for the Bishops more than this That they were under an Anathema under the Curse that Sir Robert Sawyer speaks of and for fear of that they took this Irregular Course But some would say Better fall into the hands of God than of Men some would say so I say I know not what they would say but these being the Methods that these Lords should have taken they should have pursued that Method the Law should have carved out their Relief and Remedy for them but they were for going by a new Fancy of their Own. My Lord the Law continued thus and was practised so till the 3. Hen. 7. where the Grievance was found that Offences in the Intervals of Parliament could not be well punished and then comes the Statute that sets up the Court of Star-Chamber and there Men were often brought to Judgment and Punishment for their Sins and though very great Power was given them yet they arrogated to themselves a greater and therefore that Court is abolished by the Statute of the 15th Car. 1. and what is the reason of abolishing that Statute Because the Star-Chamber did not keep within their bounds that the Law set them but assumed to themselves a larger Power than the Law would allow and grew very Exorbitant and very Grievous to the Subject And another reason was which the Statute of 15th Car. 1. founded it self upon because there was nothing that was brought in Judgment before that Court but might be relieved and remedied in the oridinary methods of Justice in the Courts of Westminster Hall So that upon those two Considerations because that Course was exorbitant and because all the Sins and Misdemeanours that were punished there might be punished in an ordinary way of Law in another Court and therefore there was no need of that Court and so it was abolished and the Subject was pretty safe If there was a Crime committed here a Man might come properly before your Lordship into this Court and have it punished My Lord they find fault with the Words in the Information and they say why are these Words put in Seditious Malicious If the matter be Libellous and Seditious we may Lawfully say it and it is no more than the Law speaks it results out of the Matter it self and if it be a Libellous Paper the Law says it is Maliciously and Seditiously done and these Gentlemen need not quarrel with us for so are all the Informations in all times past and 't is no more than the Vi Armis which is Common Form. It may be said How can the publishing of a Libel be said to be done Vi Armis That is only a Supposition of Law and they may as well Object to the conclusion of the Information that it was Contra Coronam Dignitatem Domini Regis if it be an Illegal thing or a Libel these are necessary Consequences it is no more than the speaking of the Law upon the Fact. But my Lord let us a little consider whether this Matter were Warrantable and whether they had any Warrant to do what was done they pretend it was done upon this Account That the King had set forth a Declaration and had Ordered them to Read it which to excuse themselves from they make this Petition or this Libel call it what you will and they use this as the main Argument That they say the King has done Illegally and they tell the King plainly so that it is Illegal for they take notice of this Declaration and say it is Illegal because it is contrary to the Declarations of Parliament in 1662 1672 and 1685. Pray my Lord let us consider a little whether there be any Declaration in Parliament that they have given Evidence of Have they read any Declaration of the Parliament in 1662 What is a Declaration in Parliament but a Bill that is passed by the King Lords and Commons That we know to be the meaning and no other if it pass the Commons it is no Declaration in Parliament nay if it pass the Lords and Commons it is not a Declaration in Parliament except it also pass the King all these things are Nullities and the Law takes no notice of them we have it in our Books over and over and no Court ought to suffer such Evidence to be given I know these Gentlemen are very well acquainted with the Authority in Fitz-Herbert's Title Parliament there was an Act that was said to be by the King and the Lords but because the Commons did not agree to it it is declared and adjudged to be a Nullity and the Court would take no notice of it and how can any Man call that a Declaration in Parliament which is only a Vote of the House of Commons or of the Lords No sure that is one of the Heads I go upon It 's not a Declaration in Parliament unless it be by Act of Parliament Indeed my Lord there is another sort of a Declaration in Parliament before the Lords as they are a Court of Judicature and that is a fair Declaration too for if any thing comes Judicially before the Lords either by Writ of Error or by natural Appeal from any of the other Courts or by Adjournment and there be any Judgment given That is a Declaration in Parliament and may be fairly so called So likewise there is another Judicial Declaration which is when any thing comes before the Lords Judicially upon an Impeachment of the Commons and they give Judgment upon that Impeachment That is a Declaration in Parliament But to say that there is any other Declaration in Parliament is to say more than these Gentlemen can make out if they will shew me any such I will submit to them and not speak a Word against my Lords the Bishops but if these Learned Gentlemen cannot shew me any such then they have not said that was true in this Petition that it was so and so declared in Parliament For let us consider what there is in this Case upon this Evidence for that in 1662. is only a Vote and an Opinion of the House of Commons and I always understood and have been told so by some of the Gentlemen of the other side that such a Vote signifies nothing But besides it seems to be a mistaken Address for they say in it That the Declaration in 1662. which they Address against was the first Declaration of that sort to suspend Laws without Act of Parliament and yet in the same breath they do take notice of the King's Declaration from Breda But here is a mighty Argument used from the King's Speech That